Top

Education and Information Technologies

Published in:

01-09-2013

Individual and group performance of computerized educational tasks

Author: Joseph Klein

Published in: Education and Information Technologies | Issue 3/2013

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This study examines the conditions under which task performance is accomplished more efficiently by a single individual or a group. 116 participants, ranging in age from high school level through holders of Master’s degrees, 58 women and the same number of men, were presented with a computer game based on educational software, arranged in five levels of difficulty. A comparison was made of the speed in which objectives were attained when performed individually and when divided among groups of two to four partners, controlling for the type of coordination required. Cases of expedient and inexpedient division of labor were identified, as were factors affecting feasibility, among them the number of simultaneous tasks to be performed, complexity level, number of participants and the intensity of coordination required among them. Basic principles, pertaining to the functional division of roles in learning activities and in educational administration, are discussed.

previous article Teachers’ thoughts on e-readers in the elementary school classroom

next article Can learning of basketball be enhanced through a web-based multimedia course? An experimental study

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235.CrossRef

Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., & Kankaanranta, M. (2008). Collaborative learning and computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 267–279). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (vol 2). London: Academic.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory model. In G. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances on learning and motivation, vol. 8 (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic.

Barnes, K. A., & Dougherty, M. R. (2007). The effect of divided attention on global judgment of learning accuracy. The American Journal of Psychology, 120(3), 347–359.

Blinder, A. S., & Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? monetary policy by committee. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 37(5), 789–811.CrossRef

Cox, J. C., & Hayne, S. C. (1998). Group versus individual decision making in strategic market games. Mimeo: University of Arizona.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.CrossRef

Davis, L. V., & Toseland, R. W. (1987). Group versus individual decision making: An experimental analysis. In R. W. Toseland & P. H. Ephross (Eds.), Working effectively with administrative groups (pp. 110–195). Binghamton: Howorth.

Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning. Principles and products (p 3–19).

Elidan, G., & Friedman, N. (2006). Learning hidden variable networks: The information bottleneck approach. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6, 81–127.MathSciNet

Endsley, M. R., & Smith, R. P. (1996). Attention distribution and decision making in tactical air combat. Human Factors, 38(2), 232–249.CrossRef

Eugene, S. S. (2004). Cognitive style and the management of small and medium-sized enterprises. Organization Studies, 25(2), 155–181.CrossRef

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). An exploration of differences in student learning styles, approaches to learning (deep, surface, and strategic), and levels of intellectual development. Understanding Student Differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72.CrossRef

Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1989). An approach to training based upon principal task decomposition. Acta Psychologica, 71(1–3), 14–89.

Garbis, C., & Artman, H. (2004). Team situation awareness as communicative practice. In S. Banbury & S. Tremblay (Eds.), A cognitive approach to situation awareness: Theory and application. Aldershot: Ashgate & Town.

Girard, N. (2007). Multitasking: How much is too much? AORN, 85(3), 505–506.CrossRef

Gopher, D. (1993). The skill of attention control. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance, XVI (pp. 299–322). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Gopher, D., Amony, L., & Greenshpan, Y. (2000). Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 129, 308–339.CrossRef

Hamalainen, R. (2008). Designing and evaluating collaboration in a virtual game environment for vocational learning. Computers in Education, 50(1), 98–109.CrossRef

Hämäläinen, R., Manninen, T., Oksanen, K., & Mannila, B. (2008). Designing and investigating collaborative 3D learning spaces for future learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2496–2506.CrossRef

Hartman, S. J., Lundberg, O., & White, M. (1990). Effect of background and organizational position on executive planning. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 801–811.CrossRef

Hayes, J., Allinson, C. W., Hudson, R. S., & Keasey, K. (2003). Further reflections on the nature of intuition-analysis and the construct validity of the Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(2), 269–278.CrossRef

Holzinger, A., Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., Wassertheurer, S., & Hessinger, M. (2009). Learning performance with interactive simulations in medical education: Lessons learned from results of learning complex physiological models with the HAEMOdynamics SIMulator. Computers in Education, 52(2), 292–301.CrossRef

Hough, J. R., & Ogilvie, D. T. (2005). An empirical test of cognitive style and strategic decision outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 417–448.CrossRef

James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.CrossRef

Kameda, T., Tindale, R. S., & Davis, J. H. (2003). Cognitions, preferences, and social sharedness: Past, present, and future directions in group decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 215–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kerawalla, L., Pearce, D., Yuill, N., Luckin, R., & Harris, A. (2008). “I’m keeping those there, are you?” the role of a new user interface paradigm–Separate Control of Shared Space (SCOSS)–in the collaborative decision-making process. Computers in Education, 50(1), 193–206.CrossRef

Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.CrossRef

Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Biases in judgment comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.CrossRef

Klein, J. (2005). Effectiveness of school staff meetings: Implications for teacher-training and conduct of meetings. International Journal of Research & Methods in Education, 28(1), 67–81.CrossRef

Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, S. (2005). The decision maker matters: Individual versus group behavior in experimental beauty-context games. The Economic Journal, 115, 200–223.CrossRef

Kogut, B., & Zadner, U. (1996). What firms do? coordination, identity and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.CrossRef

Komiya, A., Kusumi, T., & Watabe, M. (2007). Regret in individual and group decision making. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 78(2), 165–172.CrossRef

Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffries (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112–136). New York: Wiley.

Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., Luckin, R., Plowman, L., Taylor, J. (2000). Affordances for learning in a non-linear narrative medium. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2 [www-jime.open.ac.uk/00/2].

Lehman, R. L., Lempert, R. O., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 43, 431–442.CrossRef

Levy, J., Pashler, H., & Boer, E. (2006). Central interference in driving: Is there any stopping the psychological refractory period? Psychological Science, 17(3), 228–235.CrossRef

Littleton, K., & Light, P. (1999). Learning with computers, analysing productive interaction. London & New York: Routledge.

Lombardozzi, C. (2001). Learning journal: Thoughts on learning in organizations http://learningjournal.wordpress.com

Malone, T. W., & Kevin, C. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87–119.CrossRef

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRef

Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1999). Précis to a practical unified theory of cognition and action: Some lessons from EPIC computational models of human multiple-task performance. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII (pp. 17–88). Cambridge: MIT.

Michaelson, L. K., Watson, W. E., & Black, R. H. (1989). A realistic test individual versus group consensus decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 834–839.CrossRef

Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2006). The illusion of group productivity: A reduction of failures explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 31–48.CrossRef

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.CrossRef

Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1998). Attentional limitation in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove: Taylor and Francis.

Passig, D. (2007) Melioration as a higher thinking skill to enhance intelligence. Teachers college record. Columbia University. 109(1), 24–50.

Pinto, M., Pinto, J., & Prescott, J. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project team cross functional cooperation. Management Science, 39, 1281–1297.CrossRef

Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 561–581.CrossRef

Polk, T. A., & Seifert, C. M. (Eds.). (2002). Cognitive modeling. Cambridge: MIT.

Porush, J. (1984). On consultants’ negligence or: The best of doctors should go to hell. Israel Law, 12, 119–124.

Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, 20, 105–110.

Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & Van Selst, M. V. (2001). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 27, 3–21.CrossRef

Ryu, K., & Myung, R. (2005). Evaluation of mental workload with a combined measure based on physiological indices during a dual task of tracking and mental arithmetic. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(11), 991–1009.CrossRef

Scott, S. D., Shoemaker, G. B. D., Inkpen, K. M. (2000). Towards seamless support of natural collaborative interactions. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface (GI) 2000. May 2000, Montréal, PQ, pp. 103–110.

Sharan, S. (2002). Differentiating method of cooperative learning in research and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 106–116.CrossRef

Sharon, M. (1997). Divided attention: A study on high organizing abilities. Tel-Aviv: Gomeh Scientific Publications, Tcherikover Publishers.

Shaw, M. (1976). Group decision dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Taatgen, N. (2007). The minimal control principle. In W. D. Gray (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems (pp. 368–379). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–260). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Terrace, H. S., & Chen, S. (1991). Chunking during serial learning by a pigeon: III. What are the necessary conditions for establishing a chunk? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 17(1), 107–118.CrossRef

Tetlock, P. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? how can we know?. Princeton University Press.

Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25–50.CrossRef

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press.

Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(2), 254–277.CrossRef

Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 455–469.CrossRef

Title: Individual and group performance of computerized educational tasks
Author: Joseph Klein
Publication date: 01-09-2013
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Education and Information Technologies / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9187-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

“It’s easier to read on the Internet—you just click on what you want to read…”

Technology and education: ICT in Ugandan secondary schools

A review of empirical research on blended learning in teacher education programs

Editorial on ICT: From E-readers and computer games to basketball

Can learning of basketball be enhanced through a web-based multimedia course? An experimental study

Teachers’ thoughts on e-readers in the elementary school classroom

Premium Partner