ArticlePDF Available

Effects of Collaborative and Individual Learning in a Blended Learning Environment


Abstract and Figures

In courses using a virtual learning environment (VLE), some students like to work together, and some do not. If we give students the opportunity to choose either teamwork or individual study, how does this affect their marks and their appraisal and assessment of the course? This question has been investigated in the context of an English Literature course at the University of Utrecht. In this course, students work intensively with a VLE, and attend lectures: a blended learning environment. Previous research has shown that the pedagogical design used provides a powerful learning environment. This time, students had the choice of working on the course assignments in small teams (2–4 students), or individually. Both groups were compared based on their study results, and the answers to a questionnaire. Students valued the choice. Mainly those students with high marks for a previous course, which had a similar pedagogical design, preferred collaboration. Statistical analysis showed that collaboration resulted in significantly better marks.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Effects of collaborative and individual learning
in a blended learning environment
Eijl, P.J. van, Pilot, A. & Voogd,, (2005) Effects of collaborative and individual learning in a blended
learning environment. Education and Information Technologies. 10, 49 – 63.
Pierre J. van Eijl (, Albert Pilot ( and Peter de
Voogd (
Utrecht University
IVLOS, Institute of Education
Heidelberglaan 8
Post Box 80127
3508 TC Utrecht
The Netherlands
Effects of collaborative and individual learning in a
blended learning environment
In courses using a virtual learning environment (VLE), some students like to work
together, and some do not. If we give students the opportunity to choose either
teamwork or individual study, how does this affect their marks and their appraisal and
assessment of the course?
This question has been investigated in the context of an English Literature course at
the University of Utrecht. In this course, students work intensively with a VLE, and
attend lectures: a blended learning environment. Previous research has shown that
the pedagogical design used provides a powerful learning environment. This time,
students had the choice of working on the course assignments in small teams (2 – 4
students), or individually. Both groups were compared based on their study results,
and the answers to a questionnaire. Students valued the choice. Mainly those
students with high marks for a previous course, which had a similar pedagogical
design, preferred collaboration. Statistical analysis showed that collaboration resulted
in significantly better marks.
Keywords: virtual learning environment, higher education, pedagogical design,
collaborative learning, blended learning,
1 Start of the research
In the department of English, during the past five years, second year (sophomore)
students studied 18th century English literature in a setting combining Face-to-Face
(F2F) with a virtual learning environment (VLE). This course turned out to be very
successful. Both students and teacher liked the course (Van Eijl et al. 2000).
Originally, the course had been composed of a series of lectures and tutorials, a
reading list, and a final exam. Many students had tended to postpone the reading,
and the completion rate at the exam had only been 60%.
In the new version of this 18th century literature course based on F2F and the VLE,
students in its first half worked in small teams of 3 students, and then in the second
half individually. The VLE provided the students with extra content to enrich their
learning, self control tests, weekly graded quizzes, and assignments. The grades for
the quizzes and the assignments replaced the final exam. Each week had a theme,
with a book to read, its author, a literary subject, and social, cultural and historical
background information. For the completion of the quizzes and the assignments, the
students had to study the books of their reading list. Each week, a session was
planned during which students could work in teams, with computers available, and a
possibility to pose questions to their teacher. Questions could also be placed on the
discussion forum (Bulletin Board) of the VLE, where fellow students and the teacher
could respond to them. Each week, the assignments had to be sent in before a
deadline. The evaluation results showed a great deal of appreciation and effort on
the part of the students (and the teacher), a rise of the completion rate from 60% to
more than 90% (also after 4 years).
The evaluation also showed that some students preferred to work in teams and other
students did not. In a following course, 19th century English Literature, with the same
pedagogical design, this was turned into a topic for the research described in this
paper: what is the effect on the learning results and the appreciation for the course of
being able to choose either team or individual study?
2 Factors of interest for collaborative learning
2.1 Factors for collaborative learning
Within learning psychology and pedagogy, different theories have been developed on
collaborative learning. This refers probably to the great interest of many people in the
learning potential of students working together. Collaborative learning can be
considered (Dillenbourg et al. 1996; Roschelle and Teasley, 1995) to involve the
“mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem
together”. Social-constructive theories (Woolfolk, 2001), emphasize the importance to
the learning process of social interaction. This interaction during the learning process
should promote the achievement of higher cognitive goals. The theory about co-
operative learning of Johnson and Johnson (1994) emphasizes the importance of its
organisation in order to make it meaningful and effective. In a review about
collaborative learning, Van der Linden and Haenen (1999) mention that the cognitive
learning results in different subject areas and tasks are better than, or at least just as
good as in individual or competitive learning situations. Later on, also motivation, self-
confidence, and relations between students are promoted. The authors conclude,
however, that the results concerning the cognitive, social, and motivational level do
not always point to the same conclusions, and are sometimes contradictory. They
say that many researchers consider group goals, and the responsibility of the
individual team member, as necessary conditions to arrive at good learning results.
Individual responsibility in collaborative learning reduced the chances for a ‘free ride’.
Ros (1994) found an interesting phenomenon in relation to this: it turned out that
students learned more when giving an explanation to another than when receiving
one. It appears that explaining stimulates the organisation of the individual’s prior
knowledge, helps to discover gaps in it, and to establish connections within the
subject matter. Existing structures of knowledge are reinforced, and anchored in the
memory of the student. The same has been demonstrated by Moust (1993) in the
role of the tutor in problem-based learning.
In the case of relatively open tasks, where higher cognitive skills are required,
collaborative learning seems more appropriate than tasks requiring a more routine
approach. Van der Linden and Haenen (1999) conclude that when the task is
complex, group interaction can be a help to arrive at a higher form of thinking. If,
however, a task is very complex, then group interaction might be less productive, and
a form of expert guidance by a teacher is more suitable. The positive results of
collaborative learning are only attained if there is an open learning situation, which
requires that the collaborating students are verbally active, feel themselves safe, and
work on the task from a position of equal responsibility.
In their review on the importance of group size, Lou et al. (1996) point out that
small groups of three to four students appear more effective than larger groups.
Besides this, many educational research projects show the vast differences between
students with respect to study pace, interest, studying habits etc.
2.2 Factors influencing ICT ánd collaborative learning
The aforementioned different research angles offer indications for the pedagogical
design of collaborative learning, but do not prescribe how to combine ICT and
collaborative learning in a specific course to turn the latter into a success. Based on
the analysis of four examples of ‘good practice’, Van Eijl and Pilot (2003) formulated
fifteen success factors for the application of a VLE in collaborative learning. These four
examples showed a great variety in the ways the concept of collaborative learning
was being implemented, with variations in the duration of the collaboration using a
VLE, the entry level of the students, the group size, the feedback, and the way
students were being assessed. Given a course using collaborative learning, these
fifteen factors referred to starting up a VLE, consolidating its use, and how to
organize the feedback and assessment with the help of it. Remarkable in these
examples of ‘good practice’ was that only a limited part of their time the students did
study together in groups . Most of the time was spent on independent study and
In their review, Sivin-Kachala and Bialo (1994) refer to the software
characteristics significantly influencing the learning process of students, such as: the
degree of control students have of the steps in the teaching-learning process, the
type of feedback, the embedding of a cognitive strategy, and the use of visual
animations. In their literature study about the effects of learning in small groups, Lou
et al. (2001) conclude that, generally speaking, these effects are positive. Yet, the
effects of learning with ICT are dependent on the type of software, the feedback, the
degree of student control of the learning process, previous experience in working with
the computer, and the capacities of the students.
Puntambekar and Young (2003) propose in this context their theory of
computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL), consisting of the main factors:
nature of students’ learning goals, articulation of shared goals, nature of the teacher
facilitation and nature of the context. They consider successful collaborative learning
as a function of shared goals leading to a shared understanding.
2.3 Some results of previous research of using a VLE and collaborative
learning by the English department.
On the results of the pedagogical design as described in chapter 1 has already been
reported elsewhere (Van Eijl et al. 2000). The students’ completion rate increased
from 60% to 90%, students and teacher appreciated this pedagogical design very
highly, and the time spent on the course had been more or less the estimated time.
Students liked working in small teams of three students during the first half of the
course. It helped them to get accustomed to a learning environment in which face-to
face working was combined with working in a VLE. However, in a course evaluation
midway, some students expressed doubts about the collaborative learning: it turned
out that some students preferred to work individually, and some wondered what
would happen if the team did not function well, because their marks were dependent
on the team product. Some students also said that collaborative learning requires
extra planning. In addition, some students said that because of the collective team
product, their personal share in the content and their contribution were sometimes
not sufficiently recognized.
A question in the final questionnaire for this course checked students' preferences for
collaborative learning: 59% of the students preferred collaborative learning. This was
motivated as follows: ‘two know more than one’, ‘discussing with other students was
pleasant’, ‘then we did the assignments in time’, 'you get more out of the content’, 'a
free choice of team members is necessary’. 30% of the students preferred individual
leaning, which was motivated with: ‘that gives me a better chance to work at home,
‘then I don’t have to compromise’, and also ‘sometimes it is nice to discuss and
exchange ideas’. 11% of the students preferred a combination of collaborative and
individual learning with sayings such as: ‘individual learning during the preparation,
and collaborative learning during the assignments leads to a better formulation of the
answers’ and ‘before the course started, I had expected to prefer independent
learning, but it turned out that I also liked working in a team’.
The teamwork was for the greater part face-to-face, and for a small part virtual, by e-
mail and telephone. The tendency in these answers, and from what we recognise in
other courses in this faculty, is that quite a few students like to study collaboratively,
as long as the teams are not too big, they can decide on the choice of their team
members, and the assignments fit collaborative learning. A number of students value
a combination of individual and collaborative learning as something that can be
After this course, as described here, had been offered with great success for a
few years, the teacher involved decided to implement the same pedagogical design
in a follow-up course on 19th century English Literature, but now with a free choice by
the students to work collaboratively or not. In the research project of this article,
specifically the choice of the students is the central issue, and the results of this
choice in the context of a course using a combined VLE and Face-to-Face (F2F)
environment, so-called ‘blended learning’. This choice reflects the individual
preferences of the students for a specific way of studying. For instance, for some
students collaborative learning can have an extra value, and for others, the
opportunities for individual work, independent of time and place, which a VLE offers
can have an extra value. These lead to the following research question: what effects
does the choice of collaborative learning or of individual learning entail? Or more
precisely: are the learning results and the appreciation of the students who work
collaboratively different when compared with those of the learners working
individually? The most important aspects here are the pedagogical design of the
collaborative learning with a VLE, and the assignments (see section 4, figure 1). The
dependent variables are the learning results, and the appreciation of the students.
3 Methods
After the development of this course on 19th Century English Literature, a general
evaluation was carried out to check if this design functioned well, and as intended.
Because of the research questions, the data of the students’ marks were collected in
such a way that collaborating students could be compared with the students working
In addition, a questionnaire was placed in the VLE posing two general questions to
the students for evaluation, and a pencil and paper questionnaire was used for a
series of closed and open answer questions. And finally, the evaluator conducted
interviews with the teacher during and after the course.
A quantitative, statistical analysis was carried out on the numerical data (T-test and
co-variance-analysis with collaborative/individual learners as independent variables,
the assessment results as dependent variables, and the previous results as a co-
variants). To be able to correct for the differences in entry level, the marks from the
previous course (18th century English Literature) were used. In this analysis, only the
numerical data of those students, who did both courses, were used. In all other
analyses data on all students were used.
Also a qualitative analysis on the results of the open questions was conducted.
4 The pedagogical design
Figure 1 shows the schematic representation of the pedagogical design of the course
on English Literature of the 19th century. Compared with the previous course on 18th
century Literature, there were some important differences:
Students were allowed to choose if they wanted to study as a team or
individually. For many students who were part-time workers or had to travel a
long way to arrive at the institute, this would be a good opportunity to make an
optimal planning for their study.
Students were allowed to choose their team-mates. The maximum team size
was four students.
Besides this, there was a limited possibility for students to choose their
assignments, or even to propose an assignment themselves.
Group study Session (with ICT) E-mail
Input of
Explanation of subject
Explanation of method
Asking questions
Acquainted with
new (a.o. ICT)
information and
with each other
Arrangement of
Mini-instruction (ICT)
Written study materials
Hyperlinks (ICT)
Assignments (ICT)
Discussion (ICT)
Contribution to
Preparation for
Teacher guidance
Selftest (ICT)
Test (ICT)
Feedback on previous
assignment (ICT)
Assignment individually
and groups (ICT)
Assessment of
selftest (ICT)
Contribution to
discussion (a.o. ICT)
Products of
assignments (ICT)
• Deadline
Assessment of
Figure 1. The instructional model of the course
Explanation of the schematic representation of the design
This schematic representation of the design in figure 1 presents an overview of the
planned weekly teaching and learning activities that took place during the eight
weeks of the course. A week started with an informative lecture on the authors that
were the focus of that week. The lecture did not explain the content or books of the
authors, but painted a picture of the period when an author’s books were written, and
how they lived. The teacher also handed the students tips and instructions about
reading the books in a focussed way, and to help in making a literary technical
analysis of it. This lecture aimed at motivating students. During the first lecture,
students formed teams and told the teacher their choices.
After this lecture, the individual and collaborative studies followed during which
students read the books, used the VLE, individually completed a quiz posted in the
VLE, and worked collaboratively or individually on an assignment.
Next was a computer session, during which students continued work on their
assignments. These assignments were formulated in such a way that both teams and
individuals could do them. Each week in these courses, students had the option to
choose two out of three writers. Before a specified deadline, the assignments had to
be mailed to the teacher using the VLE. The teacher graded the assignments, and
typed the results into the student records of the VLE. Team members received a
collective mark.
Each student could check the results in the VLE. Each week, on the discussion forum
of the VLE, the teacher published a general feedback on the assignments. During the
computer sessions or through the VLE discussion forum (Bulletin Board), students
could also pose questions.
5 Results
5.1 Delivery of the course
The general picture of the results resembled that of the previous course on 18th
century English Literature. Nearly everybody kept up with the course, as became
visible in the weekly quizzes, and the assignments. Three fourths of the group of 61
students consisted of students in their second year of studying English. Other
students came from different disciplines, most of them Language and Culture studies,
and some Erasmus and foreign exchange students. They were about 20 years of
age, with some exceptions of older students. The ratio female-to-male students was
70:30. The collaborating students did not differ as a group from the individual
The course was carried out in accordance with the planning. The teacher
estimated that ca. 60% of the students participated in the lectures. The computer
sessions (with the VLE) were well attended during the first weeks of the course. After
that, students failed to show up in the sessions, and logged in from other places and
at other times. At the start of the course, teams of two to four students were formed
spontaneously, who then discussed the assignments, and carried them out. The
teacher stimulated the collaboration: 56% of the students joined a team. A
considerable number of students (44%), however, chose to work individually. A few
students chose to propose an assignment of their own. In some cases, the teacher
accepted this proposal, in other cases he did not.
This time, too, a high completion rate was attained (95%), and the students
and the teacher greatly appreciated the pedagogical design. A summary of the
reactions and opinions of 90% of the (61) students on two open questions in the VLE
regarding plus and minus points illustrates this, see Box 1.
Please, enter below (not for a mark, but because I am curious) those elements of this
course that you found
(a) most interesting, stimulating or worthwhile
(b) least so – in other words: pros and cons of this course, in your personal opinion.
In the questionnaire, respondents mentioned a large number (90) of positively valued
aspects of the course, 24 critical remarks, 5 times different learning results were
mentioned, and 13 suggestions were given for the next course. The most positive
remarks (20) were about the content of the course that they found interesting, about
the books, and about the assignments. In 17 remarks, the appraisal of the course as
a whole was mentioned, frequently mentioned as one of the best they had had until
now. 16 times the integration of the course with the Internet was mentioned as a
positive aspect. The efficiency of this course was mentioned 13 times including
deadlines, assignments that could be done during the course and counted for the
final mark, useful suggestions for reading, independent planning of study time, and
working in teams. There were 24 critical remarks. The heavy workload was
mentioned most frequently (15x): too much, and sometimes too large a number of
pages to read (not enough time to read the books completely), and sometimes the
combination with another simultaneously programmed course. Three students
mentioned technical problems with WebCT. Five other critical remarks were about
the relation between the lectures and the assignments: not always parallel, did not
give suggestions for the quiz, and did not add anything to the online information.
Eight times the lectures were mentioned as a positive element: stimulating, a nice
style of teaching and the enthusiasm of the teacher.
Students valued the course in the questionnaire with the mean score of ‘good’.
Box 1. Impressions of students about the course.
5.2 Analysis of the assessment results
Comparison of the marks of collaborating students and students working individually
produced the following picture:
Great differences in marks between collaborating and individual workers.
Of the 61 students that participated in the course and were assessed, 58 passed and
3 failed. 34 Students worked collaboratively (56%), and 27 students individually
(44%). The mean mark of the whole group was 7.4 on a ten-point scale, which is
quite well in the Dutch educational situation.
If we compare collaborators with individual workers, a remarkable difference
becomes apparent: the mean mark of the collaborators was 7.69, that of the
individual workers 6.74. The difference between the mean marks of these groups
was 0.95. This difference has been examined in more detail.
Especially high performing students did choose to work collaboratively.
The question is whether the collaboration did cause the high marks. Or is it that the
group of students who had chosen to work collaboratively consisted of (already)
highly performing students, and that this selection had caused the effect we
described? To analyse this, the results of the students in the previous course, with a
similar pedagogical design (English Literature of the 18th century), were collected. 43
of our 61 students had participated in this course. The other students had done a re-
sit of last year, or were Erasmus- and Socrates students, and students of other
disciplines. The 43 students were nearly all regular second year students of English.
These data were used in the further analysis of the results in this project. The
comparison of the marks showed that the collaborating students as a group were the
highly performing students (p=0.001) of the previous course. It turned out that
collaborating was obviously attractive to them.
Working collaboratively leads to significantly higher marks.
A next question was if collaboration resulted in a higher mark for these previously
high-scoring students. A co-variance analysis was performed in which, besides
collaboration or working individually, the mark of the previous course (18th Century
English Literature) was used as a co-variant. The results showed that collaboration
had a significant effect (Bèta= 0.510; t=4.065***), after correction for the entry level.
This shows that collaboration lends an added value to the learning process.
5.3 Analysis of the questionnaire results
The response to this questionnaire was low. The reason for this was that students
took the questionnaire during the final lecture of the course, which took place outside
the regular period, and was not obligatory. All the students in this lecture (18 of the
61 that attended the course) gave their answers to the questions. The question
whether students collaborated with their fellow students on the assignments showed
the following results: 56% of the students had been working together on all
assignments, 44% had only occasionally collaborated, or not at all. This is in
agreement with the ratio of collaborating/non-collaborating students in the whole
group of 61 students.
In the statistical analysis of the data of the pre-structured questions, we limited
ourselves as much as possible to the issue of collaboration or working individually.
We checked to what degree the collaborating and non-collaborating students differed
in their answers to the questionnaire. We applied T-tests with collaboration as the
‘grouping variable’. In table 1, we present the significant relations with collaboration.
Respondents that had collaborated with their fellow students were of the opinion that
they had learned more (t= -3.12; df= 14; p=0.008). They also valued the ICT practice
sessions more highly than the students that had not collaborated (t= -2.94; df=15; p=
0.010); and their satisfaction with the assessment system was higher than that of the
non-collaborators (t= -2.39; df= 15; p=0.030). The opportunity to repeat the quiz
(including getting feedback on their answers) had stimulated them to reflect on the
subject (t= -2.21; df 15; p=0.043). Respondents who had not collaborated were of the
opinion that it takes more time to work collaboratively (t=2.69; df=14; p=0.018).
On other aspects of the course that came up in the questionnaire, collaborators did
not answer significantly differently from the non-collaborators. This involved e.g.
keeping up with the course schedule, opinion about difficulty of quizzes and
assignments, appreciation of opportunities to make their own choices, transparency
of assessment, evaluation of lectures, time spent on course work, coherency and
study load of the course. In the questionnaire, two questions were posed about the
time spent on course work: how much time did you spend on reading the literature,
and how much time did you work at the computer. On both questions, there was no
difference between these groups of students.
Table 1
Results of the analysis with collaboration as the ‘grouping variable’
Question in the
Mean mark of
Mean mark of
T-score and
To what extent did
you learn more
4.30 (0.67) 3.17 (0.75) -3.12**
How useful were in
your opinion the
meetings to
practice at the
4.30 (0.67) 3.00 (1.15) -2.94*
What was your
opinion about the
system in this
4.20 (0.63) 3.29 (0.95) -2.39*
Did the option to
repeat the quiz
stimulate you to
reflect more?
3.60 (1.07) 2.29 (1.38) -2.21*
To what extent is
learning more time
consuming for
3.60 (0.70) 4.50 (0.55) 2.69*
The electronic forum for discussion (for all) was indeed used by the students
and their teacher. Students mainly asked questions on organisational issues, and
sometimes questions on content issues. Some students demonstrated more activity
than others, two thirds of the respondents had been involved in the discussion forum
one or more times. More than three fourths of the students were of the opinion that
the discussion forum was useful or very useful. At some moments, a discussion on
content matter took place. The teacher reacted very alertly in those instances. He
also posted texts containing general feedback and announcements on this forum.
Two thirds of the respondents additionally used their own e-mail system for their
The analysis of the open answer questions showed the following results:
Extra learning. Students mention as advantages of collaboration ‘extra
learning’ (13 respondents), and saving time to study (4). Examples of ‘extra learning’
are: ‘you get new insights, which you would not have achieved otherwise’; ‘you hear
different points of view and others draw your attention to things you would otherwise
not have noticed’; ‘you can contribute different ideas and arrive at a really good
answer’; ‘you also hear now and then how other students view the subject’, and
‘discussing issues makes you work more actively with the reading materials’.
Disadvantages because of time and planning problems. As disadvantages of
collaboration, students mention the extra time that is needed (5 respondents), the
problems with planning (4), and reaching one collective answer or result (3).
Especially, the individual workers mention these time and planning problems.
Other learning results. As important issues learned by the respondents other
than the course content, students mentioned the way of reading literature (12
respondents); a new understanding of their own manner of working (8); literature and
culture of the 19th century; further experiences with the instructional method used in
this course (6); collaboration as such (4); and the use of the internet (2).
Suggestions for improvement of the course. The suggestions students gave
for the further improvement of the course mostly involved a reduction of the large
amount of reading assignments, and the need for more personal feedback. A large
number of students had no suggestions, or wrote a note of encouragement to go on
with this type of instruction (“keep up the good work!”, a student wrote).
6 Conclusions
The instructional design of collaborative learning in combination with ICT proved to
be more than feasible, and produced good learning results. The opportunity given to
the students in this course to choose between working collaboratively and working
individually, in combination with face-to-face instruction, virtual instruction, and
studying from written materials proved to be highly appreciated by the students.
Another conclusion was that especially the group of students with high marks liked to
collaborate. For these students, collaboration provides perhaps an extra stimulus,
just as we have seen in the honours programmes (Van Eijl et al. 1999) taken by
those students who want to do something extra in their curriculum.
Collaboration paid off for those students who had chosen that option: they achieved
higher marks. The analysis of the data further showed students who had worked
collaboratively also found that they learned more.
Students who had worked individually also found that their way of working has
advantages. In particular, they mentioned problems of time and planning connected
with collaborative learning.
7 Discussion
In many respects, the instructional model the teacher applied in this course has
proved to function very well. Using this model produced many advantages when
learning results are considered. The lectures in the traditional course were largely
replaced by activating assignments and quizzes, which asked for more reflection on
the content. Because of the formative assessment during the course, the student is
kept on track much better (less procrastination) than in the traditional course with
only one final, summative assessment. Looking at the success ratio, 90% of the
students were successful at the first examination, while previously the success ratio
was not higher than 70% after two re-sits. For the teacher, giving the course was
much more pleasant, and in the end less time consuming than the previous situation.
But this instructional model also brought with it issues for discussion.
Collaborative learning, learning individually, or both? The opportunity for
students to choose between learning collaboratively or individually proved to be
successful: the same high success ratio and high dedication of students, comparable
with the course on 18th century English literature, were realised in this course. Not a
single student mentioned regretting this choice. On the contrary, both the
collaboratively working as well as the individually working students proved to be
satisfied with their choices. Collaborating students experienced important
advantages, and the individually working students, too, proved to value the flexibility
that the Internet gives them in the planning of their time schedule, and in their time
investment. In the questionnaire, not a single student complained about possibly
negative aspects of the collaborative learning, as had been the case in a previous
evaluation of the course on 18th century English Literature (see section 2.2). For that
matter, both collaborating as well as individually working students think even-
handedly about collaborative learning, and in the questionnaire students of both
groups mention advantages as well as disadvantages on this issue.
The good learning results of the collaborators can be an argument to oblige the
students to work together. The problem is whether this leads to new problems,
because some students see this obligation as undesirable, or are anxious that bad
collaboration leads to a lower mark.
Differences in time investment. Individually working students, more than
collaborators, found that collaborative learning requires them to invest more time (see
Table 1). Questions in the questionnaire about time spent on the different tasks in the
course, however, do not show this. But this does not exclude the possibility that co-
workers used somewhat more time, e.g. for coming to meetings of their team.
Improvement of reading abilities? The teacher did pay extra attention to
reading abilities in this and the previous course (18th century English Literature).
Inquiry about the effect of this attention was not an issue in this research, but in an
open question in the questionnaire (see section 5.3), asking about learning results
other than content results, 12 (67%) respondents mentioned ‘learned to read books
differently’. The new instructional model that requires students to read much literature
within a short time span, in combination with the teacher’s instructions and the
assignments, did probably promote the other way of reading the literature.
ICT supports now the ‘F2F’-collaboration, but can it replace it? In a previous
study (Van Eijl et al. 2000) with a course scheduled before this one, it appeared that
students who meet during a lecture or computer session show not much need for
digital chat sessions, or to collaborate otherwise in a fully digital manner. F2F-
contacts are much faster and are stimulating for a team of co-workers. However, they
found the discussion forum in the digital learning environment useful, and more than
75% of the students also used their own e-mail system.
Remarks on the design of this study. A question not completely answered by
this study involves the question how the individual mark of the students in the
previous course is related to the effect of collaborative learning: is the positive effect
for the high-scoring students the same as for the low scoring students? More detailed
research is needed to come to a more definitive conclusion. As mentioned before, a
drawback in this study was the circumstances that led to a low response to the
questionnaire (30%). That means that the conclusions in section 5.3 should be
considered with caution.
Too much time investment by the teacher? The instructional model used is
intensive not only for the students, but also for the teacher. When all students work
individually, the teacher has to assess in principle 120 essay questions each week. In
collaborative learning, this number is reduced, which is an argument for the teacher
to stimulate collaborative learning. This by the way explains the complaints of some
students about not getting enough feedback – that is a problem of teaching time. The
teacher comments are that he himself can influence to a certain extent the amount of
assessment work. For example, by concentrating on short answer questions, and by
checking the content related aspects. And the collaboration of students greatly
reduced the assessment load.
Are online tests vulnerable to fraud? To what extent can the teacher be sure
that, in online testing, the student himself gives the answers and not someone else?
In testing using a VLE, fraud cannot be excluded completely. There are however a
number of methods to reduce chances of fraud:
Using the student tracking option of WebCT, the teacher can to a certain
extent check whether students really do their work. For teamwork, however, this
is difficult because sometimes only one student is connected to the VLE on
behalf of the whole team.
The quiz is an obligatory unit. To be successful in the quiz, students have to
study the subject matter. Passing the quiz is necessary to be allowed to do the
assignment in the VLE that counts for the final mark .
Formulating the assignments in such a way that reflection about the subject
matter is needed activates students. For example: “what passage is the best in
your opinion, and why?”, and not: “what is the key issue in that passage?”.
Within the teams, a certain degree of social control prevents the phenomenon
of 'free riding'. In the new instructional model, it appeared that within one team
the team members were dissatisfied with one of their fellow students (‘he did not
do enough’). The other members expelled this student from the team.
To the teacher, however, free riding will be a cause for concern, and different
methods of coping with this problem will have to be considered (Visschers-
Pleijers et al. 2001).
Can the effect of collaborative learning be extended to other courses using
ICT? The success factors mentioned above are relevant to the use of ICT in a
course, but not so much to the use of collaborative learning. To what extent can the
results of this study be generalised towards other courses with ICT? In our opinion,
not without further discussion. A number of issues should be considered:
- Collaborative learning should pay off in the experience of the student;
otherwise, the method does not work or has a counterproductive result. In this
respect, some elements of the instructional design of the course are important:
not merely a final exam, which was the assessment method in the traditional
course, but assignments during the course that count towards the final mark,
quizzes, and a weekly deadline. For the assignments that were assessed,
collaboration was functional and stimulating, as was shown in the appraisal by
the students, and the remarks they ventured about collaborative learning.
- The number of students in the team was also an important element in the
design, as might be expected from other research (Lou et al. 1996). The teacher
limited the number to a maximum of 4, because in his opinion the assignments
were not feasible for larger teams. The limited size of the team in this course
meant that the students could work intensively and in a task oriented manner,
and not much time was needed for the internal organisation of the team.
- The instructional model of the new course proved to be highly feasible for the
subject of the course. Generalisation of this model to courses in other
disciplines that also demand many reading activities is possible, but sometimes
other achievements will be expected from students, and sometimes teachers
will have other instructional preferences. A number of alternatives are
conceivable using the same instructional model, but with some changes in their
elaboration. Some alternatives that were considered in discussions with the
teachers about the model and the results were:
Production of a paper. It seems to be possible to ask students to produce
some kind of a larger paper, individually or in teams, e.g. by a combination of a
number of assignments. Students can then work on a more substantial,
complex, and possibly more authentic learning task to realise other learning
goals. The same instructional design can be used for other products, which
should be submitted to the teacher through e-mail and/or to fellow students to
get (peer) feedback on an interim version (Van den Berg, Admiraal and Pilot,
Next to digital, also F2F-presentations of the results. In a large group of
students (in the current course more than 60), it can be too time consuming to
organise oral presentations for all students. For a somewhat smaller group of
students, however, this might be a good alternative. The students might choose
to give an individual presentation, or to prepare it in their team. For a number of
students, in their preparation, verbalisation and explanation of the subject to
fellow students can be important learning activities. The instructional design
described above can be used for this purpose, scheduling oral presentations in
certain weeks, next to submitting results in a digital form.
Investment in an instructional design with ICT as described presumably only pays off
when the course content does not change too fast: but if so, a VLE is a good
instrument to present the assignments, (self-)tests with feedback, and parts of the
subject documentation (next to books) to the students. This instructional model
proved to be very suitable for courses where subject matter and learning activities
give rise to procrastination of the students: because of the design of the instruction,
they are motivated to study, individually or in a team, a large amount of content with a
great chance of success during the full period of the course. Also, the type of learning
objectives is important. The particular objective of this course was that the students
by reflection activities would get a good understanding of the coherence of the many
literary aspects of a period. The instructional model presented in this article proved to
be very successful for this objective.
We thank Wilfried Admiraal, Perry den Brok, Rick de Graaff, and Jacques Haenen for
their support with the interpretation of the data, and for their comments.
Berg, B.A.M. van den, Admiraal, W. F. and Pilot, A. (2003) Peer assessment in
university teaching. An exploration of useful designs. In Book of Abstracts, ECER
conference. Hamburg, Germany.
Dillenbourg, P., Blaker, M., Blaye, A. and O’Malley, C. (1996) The evolution of
research on collaborating learning. In Learning in humans and machine: towards an
interdisciplinary learning science, E. Spada and P.Reimand (Eds). Elsevier, Oxford,
pp 189-211.
Eijl, P.J. van, Pilot, A., Jong, Y.C. de, Voogd, P.J. de and Janssens, T. (2000) A model
for a website supported course. In Book of 24th International Conference Improving
University Teaching and Learning IUT2000. Frankfurt, Germany.
Eijl, P.J. van, Pilot, A. and Quaak, M. (2001) Collaborative learning and ICT: models
and design principles. In Book of BITE 2001 conference. Eindhoven, The
Eijl, P.J. van and Pilot, A. (2003) Using a virtual learning environment (VLE) in
collaborative learning: criteria for success. Educational Technology 43, 2, 54-56.
Eijl, P.J. van, Faber, G., Jorissen, M.G.A. and Pilot, A. (1999) Improving academic
learning by an honors program. In Book of 24th International Conference Improving
University Teaching and Learning IUT'99. Brisbane, Australia.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1994) Leading the cooperative school. Interaction
Book Company, Edina, Minnesota, USA.
Linden, J. van der, and Haenen, J. (1999) Samenwerkend leren; van theorie via
onderzoek naar onderwijspraktijk. In Handboek Leerlingbegeleiding, N. Deen et al.
(red.). Samson, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands.
Lou, Y., Abrami, C.A., Spence, J.C., Poulson, C., Chambers, B., and d’Apollonia, S.
(1996) With-inclass grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66,
Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C., and d’Apollonia, S. (2001) Small group and individual learning
with technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449-521.
Moust, J. (1993) De rol van tutoren in probleemgestuurd onderwijs. Universitaire Pers
Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Puntambekar, S. and Young, M.F. (2003) Moving toward a theory of CSCL. In B.
Wasson, S. Ludvigsen and U. Hoppe (Eds) Designing for Change in Networked
Learning Environments. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 503-512.
Ros, A. (1994) Samenwerking tussen leerlingen en effectief onderwijs. De invloed
van de leerkracht. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Roschelle, J. and Teasley, S.D. (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in
collaborative problem solving. In C.E. Malley (Ed) Computer supported collaborative
learning. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 69-97.
Sivin-Kachala, J., and Bialo, E.R. (1994) Report on the effectiveness of technology in
schools, 1990-1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 726.)
Visschers-Pleijers, A.J.S.F., Mulders, D.J.W.M. and Wouw, H.M.W.J. van de (2001)
Meeliftgedrag bij samenwerkend leren. Onderzoek van Onderwijs, 30 (3), 38 – 42.
Weert, T.J. van, and Pilot, A. (2003) Task-based team learning with ICT, design and
development of new learning. Education and Information Technologies 8, 2, 195 -
Woolfolk, A.E. (2001) Educational Psychology. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, USA.
Pierre van Eijl is a senior educational consultant of higher education at IVLOS,
Institute of Education, at Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Albert Pilot is professor of Curriculum Development at IVLOS, Institute of Education
and professor of Education of Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry at Utrecht University,
The Netherlands.
Peter de Voogd is a professor of English Literature at the Faculty of Arts, at Utrecht
University, The Netherlands.
Address for correspondence: Drs. P. J. van Eijl, Utrecht University, IVLOS, P.O. Box
80127, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands, tel. +31-(0)30-2531968, e-mail:
... However, asynchronous activities that were captured by a computer may not reveal actual activities of a student. For example, this evidence (Eijl et al., 2005) supports the assumption that using discussion forums for collaborative learning result in higher marks than individual study. However, some students who did not participate in the online forum may have had face-to-face discussions or have used other communication tools (Eijl et al., 2005). ...
... For example, this evidence (Eijl et al., 2005) supports the assumption that using discussion forums for collaborative learning result in higher marks than individual study. However, some students who did not participate in the online forum may have had face-to-face discussions or have used other communication tools (Eijl et al., 2005). A previous study (Barolli et al., 2006) also suggested that learning materials provided small stimulating motivation and communication between student and teacher provided more stimulating motivation. ...
... Students can expand the cognitive process via other experts within a society (Fraser, 2012). Students achieve significantly better marks when they work together in a virtual learning environment (Eijl et al., 2005). This study showed that collaborating students were motivated to study and they benefited from the flexible management of their time schedule, enabled by the Internet. ...
Full-text available
Educators in higher education institutes often use statistical results obtained from their online Learning Management System (LMS) dataset, which has limitations, to evaluate student academic performance. This study differs from the current body of literature by including an additional dataset that advances the knowledge about factors affecting student academic performance. The key aims of this study are fourfold. First, is to fill the educational literature gap by applying machine learning techniques in educational data mining, making use of the Internet usage behaviour log files and LMS data. Second, LMS data and Internet usage log files were analysed with machine learning techniques for predicting at-risk-of-failure students, with greater explanation added by combining student demographic data. Third, the demographic features help to explain the prediction in understandable terms for educators. Fourth, the study used a range of Internet usage data, which were categorized according to type of usage data and type of web browsing data to increase prediction accuracy.
... Research experiences demonstrate how the use of digital technologies help the realisation of on-line collaborative learning using activities such as gamification (Hasan, 2019), peer assessment (Badea, 2019), collaborative writing (Biasutti, 2017) and led teachers to organise online collaborative activities in a very flexible way using e-learning platforms such as Moodle (Abedin, 2012). Several authors have compared learning outcomes in online courses between students who worked in groups and students who worked individually, demonstrating the effectiveness of collaborative activities (Van Eijl et al, 2005), which lead to an improvement in higher cognitive abilities and excellent results. ...
A key strategic objective of the University courses is the promotion and development of new and innovative teaching activities, also through the e-learning environment, with the aim of providing students with direct involvement in the learning process. Collaborative activities represent important and effective teaching methodologies that allow the improvements of learning outcomes through active learning. Furthermore, they can allow the development of soft skills because they enable learners to work together and practice critical reflection and conflict negotiation. Recently, online learning environments are being used to design and deliver assignments based on student work groups. Indeed, the development of digital technologies allows the organization of these online activities in a flexible way for both students and teachers. The goal of this work is to develop successful collaborative activities for undergraduate students to ensure the improvement of knowledge and soft skills on a specific topic. One of the fundamental factors that influence the success of collaborative learning is the students’ group formation, which consists in the realization of heterogeneous groups in terms of cognitive resources, characteristics, and behaviors, composed by four or five students. However, the correct implementation of groups requires careful profiling of each student’s behavior which can be difficult for the teacher to detect. In this work an intelligent software, developed using Artificial Intelligence algorithms, was used to assist the teacher in the realization of heterogeneous groups of students. It is composed of a Machine Learning model, consisting in clustering techniques applied to Moodle learning analytics performed to return clusters that identifies different students’ profiles, and a specific algorithm that automatically organizes the groups, ensuring the heterogeneity including at least one student from each cluster. At the end of the execution the software returns the list of the heterogeneous groups to the teacher. The software was applied to assignments that required working group within a specific online course for university students, using a Moodle e-learning platform. The quantitative analysis demonstrated the effectiveness of the numerical method for group composition proposed in this work to ensure successful collaborative activities, confirmed also by the perceptions of the students on the course.
... But enough teaching time and resources had to be available to respond adequately to students' initiatives. However, implementation can be done in a modest way as in the case of a teacher that offered the students in a blended learning course ( van Eijl, Pilot, & Voogd, 2005) the possibility to replace a course assignment with a selfchosen assignment which could be done with other students, but which had to be approved at forehand by the teacher. ...
Full-text available
Seven strategies for implementing an honours community 1.Match students for the honours programme based on willingness and capabilities to cooperate 2.Shared experiences are the key issue in honours communities. 3.Facilitate student initiatives can be a powerful way to strengthen student ownership of an honours community. 4.Create of an intense period of interaction to deepen and enhance bonding within an honours community. 5.Organize a series of interactive activities during the whole programme to stimulate community. 6.Highlight the performance of a teacher/coach as a role model. 7.Involve community activities in feedback procedures and student evaluations.
... Student personal preferences of the learning modes influence their views on blended learning and their participation in online discussions (Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2008). Previous research pointed out that students differ in their preferences for collaborative or individual learning, group learning or self-paced learning (Van Eijl, Pilot & De Voogd, 2005). The research of Graff (2003) found that learners differ in their sense of learning community. ...
Full-text available
Universities started to implement online learning to support face-to-face learning. However, student satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of blended learning courses are linked to their previous learning experience, personal preferences and other student and teacher variables. This study examines student satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of a blended learning course and key factors related their satisfaction and perceived effectiveness in a Belgian university. In total 117 students enrolled for this course participated in an online survey and a random sample of 22 students participated in the interviews. The results indicate that student background and situational variables (international or local students, full-time or part-time students) perceived the effectiveness of the blended learning course differently. Part-time students had a higher perception of the effectiveness of the blended learning course. International students were more in favour of the blended learning mode than local students. Teacher competence and teacher support were regarded as the most important determinants for student satisfaction with the blended learning course. Other important factors influencing student perceptions and satisfaction with the blended learning course were examined and the results were discussed.
Full-text available
This meta-analysis study aims to determine the background of collaborative learning in science learning. The sample used was purposive sampling related to research on the background of collaborative learning in natural science teaching and learning processwith seventeen research samples. Six classes actions will be used as samples to find the background for the application of collaborative learning in science learning, while the other 11 plus 6 existing classroom action studies were used as supporting materials for the background. Results based on a meta-analysis study, it was found that 29.40% of collaborative learning was motivated by the lack of students' social skills. In addition, there were also 6 problems that underlie related or emerging studies, including the lack of absorption and mastery of student learning, passive students, low student motivation, lack of innovative learning strategies, lack of innovative learning media, lack of social skills of students, low critical thinking skills of students.
This paper takes a look at blogging and mobile learning, the two technologies that underpin the learner's experience of technology-enhanced learning. Each technology is critically discussed in terms of how it supports teaching and learning and judged against its strength and weaknesses in specific contexts. Based on concrete evidence, including the author's design of the learning activity, key recommendations were given to other practitioners as to how they can use each technology for teaching. One finding is that, as traditional classrooms change, blogging can help students develop the necessary educational skills, but more research is needed to understand the changing nature of teaching and learning as a result of using blogs. To overcome many obstacles related to mobile technology, a solid strategy was recommended. In conclusion, the author found the concept of individual and collaborative learning useful, especially in understanding the experience of learners in a given context. Key Words : Use of Blog in Learning, Online and Distance Education, Mobile Learning, Students and Teachers’ Experience with Technology, Web 2.0 Tools, Individual and Collaborative Learning, Learning Design and Specification.
Full-text available
This book was written to explain the intricacies of streaming media and their use in education today. The aim was to be as complete as possible, within the limits of the book’s size. The first chapter offers a short introduction to the fundamentals of streaming: what it really is streaming, and why we use it in education, as well as a user’s guide to the way streaming works. The second chapter of the book deals (very briefly and superficially) with the technical aspects involved with streaming media. A reader not interested in technology (or alternatively, proficient in it) may safely leave it out and proceed with the rest: this chapter was placed there just to clear out certain misunderstandings that the authors discovered to be almost common, amongst interested educators. Indeed, as the name clearly spells out, it is written for pedestrians! Chapter 3 presents the major learning theories in education, and their overlap with ICT. In chapter four, the use of Information and Communication Technology in education is dealt with in a rounded fashion, while placing an emphasis in blended learning, and the use of streaming in such school practices. A classification of the software categories used in education is also presented, giving also an overview of all the current trends in e-learning and educational streaming usage. In chapter 5, an attempt is made classify the various educational activities in which streaming media play the major role. The classification presented is novel and aims to be complete, for the time being at least. While the activity in a particular classroom might be best described as a sequence of two or more such elementary activities (as the ones in the new classification), it is felt that this is the only way to proceed in an orderly fashion within this diverging scene of teaching practices that use streaming media. Each activity within this classification scheme is analysed and, (as most of these were tried out by members of our collaboration in one way or another), the advantages seen and the problems encountered are clearly spelled out every such activity. The technicalities, the intricacies, the problems encountered, as well as the gains to the students when creating new media, make up the rest of chapter five. Chapter 6 gives specific examples of educational implementation of streaming media. Its various sections are contributed by the various groups of the e-stream (Minerva) collaboration. In chapter 7, the basis of the quantitative educational research performed by the e-stream collaboration is explained Streaming media is such a vibrant and rapidly developing field today, that it was seen crucial to try to get an overview of the developments emerging in the field and to try to estimate (guess, really) their impact in education. This is done in chapter 8, where due to the diversity of the developments presented one would be tempted to suggest that most readers would find something interesting, if not fascinating. Indeed, not all of the foreseen developments are science and engineering developments; some are financial, others industrial-infrastructure related, while others are device marketing trends, others constitute important software developments, while others refer to methods and trends in using ICT. They all make up the intriguing puzzle of the shape of streaming media in education tomorrow. The final chapter of the book gives a general overview of streaming media in education today and presents the general conclusions of the present research effort in the field of streaming.
The word technology is inaccurately linked to hardware or tools only, and this misunderstanding has resulted in large sum of money invested in hardware or tools. In consequence, institutions and companies do not get the expected returns from these investments. One of the possible reasons for this could be the lack in understanding and knowledge of software and technology. This chapter attempts to describe the various education technologies in the forms of hardware or tools as well as software which include teaching and learning methods and how they are blended together to achieve effective communications. The technologies described in this chapter are blended learning, podcast, reciprocal peer tutoring, and personal learning environment. Finally, the chapter outlines some future research directions in the area of education technologies.
e-Learning has been used in medical education and has changed markedly inresponse to technological advances in this field. To update the learning environment andadapt it to the ever-changing student profile, various multimedia technologies have beenintroduced into medical education to enhance student knowledge. Over the years, thesetechnologies have been variously referred to as computer-assisted learning, web-basedlearning, online learning, internet-based learning or, simply, e-Learning, although theseare not all necessarily interchangeable terms. These new types of media never replacedolder, more traditional methods of teaching but mingled with the latter to generate newforms that contain features from each of the original approaches. For the basic sciencedisciplines that form the basis of medical courses, it is important that the learning processoccur in the most efficient manner since students will not encounter many of thefundamental concepts directly, but will depend on them daily in clinical practice. Inmedical education, e-Learning can be used to provide extra-class activity thatsupplements formal class lectures by extrapolating traditional classroom boundaries andallowing students to focus on their individual needs, i.e., an individualized way oflearning. The use of e-Learning during class demands specific training and skills of theeducator, particularly an ability to interact easily with information and communicationtechnologies and to have a flexible mind that is open to innovate and adapt the classiclecture style to the needs of a new generation of students. As a counterpart, students areexpected to adapt to a new learning situation that requires them to share, discuss, explore and generally interact in a more collaborative manner. Our experience in e-Learningbegan at the turn of the century, in 2000, when we gradually began to introduceinformation and communication technologies into the teaching of Human Embryology tofirst year medical students at the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil. Inthis chapter, we discuss our perceptions, as well as future plans on the possible use of e-Learning as a supplemental activity and as the main strategy for providing a trulycollaborative approach for learning in the classroom. e-Learning may help students moveaway from dependence on lecturers as the major or only strategy of learning to a moreautonomous or independent situation. In this strategy, the learning event is determined bythe student's experience, know-how and personal skills acquired in a process that iscoherent with the student's profile.
Full-text available
The objective of this study is to analyze the possibility of blending conventional instruction with online instruction via a social networking website, Facebook, in EFL classrooms in order to motivate students and improve their English language learning. Thus, this paper seeks to examine specific ways in which EFL teachers can use Facebook as an educational tool, describing the benefits of this technological instrument and analyzing the potential pitfalls and challenges that it could create. Besides, it includes practical strategies that teachers can apply in order to overcome these pitfalls and get the most out of this social network.
Full-text available
This paper focuses on the processes involved in collaboration using a microanalysis of one dyad’s work with a computer-based environment (the Envisioning Machine). The interaction between participants is analysed with respect to a ‘Joint Problem Space’, which comprises an emergent, socially-negotiated set of knowledge elements, such as goals, problem state descriptions and problem solving actions. Our analysis shows how this shared conceptual space is constructed through the external mediational framework of shared language, situation and activity. This approach has particular implications for understanding how the benefits of collaboration are realised and serves to clarify the possible roles of the computers in supporting collaborative learning.
In this paper we look across research projects and research perspectives to address the issue of theory-building in the context of CSCL. We propose that successful collaborative learning is a function of shared goals leading to a shared understanding. Shared understanding however, is mutually determined by factors such as the nature of the tool (e. g., CSILE), the context in which learning occurs and the role of the teacher/facilitator.
This study quantitatively synthesized the empirical research on the effects of social context (i.e., small group versus individual learning) when students learn using computer technology. In total, 486 independent findings were extracted from 122 studies involving 11,317 learners. The results indicate that, on average, small group learning had significantly more positive effects than individual learning on student individual achievement (mean ES = +0.15), group task performance (mean ES = +0.31), and several process and affective outcomes. However, findings on both individual achievement and group task performance were significantly heterogeneous. Through weighted least squares univariate and multiple regression analyses, we found that variability in each of the two cognitive outcomes could be accounted for by a few technology, task, grouping, and learner characteristics in the studies.
This report summarizes the educational technology research conducted from 1990 through 1994. It is based on 133 research reviews and reports on original research projects from both published and unpublished sources. This research varied in methodology: some studies used a technique for synthesizing and analyzing data from many different studies; some compared the use of technology to traditional instructional methods; some compared the use of technology under different learning conditions; and some utilized classroom observation. The report is divided into three sections: (1) "Effects of Technology on Student Achievement"; (2) "Effects of Technology on Student Self-Concept and Attitudes about Learning"; and (3) "Effects of Technology on Interactions Involving Teachers and Students in the Learning Environment." A list of conclusions drawn from the analysis is included, as well as a bibliography of the research cited. (Contains 170 references.) (JLB)