The Effects of Group Composition on
Achievement, Interaction, and Learning
Efficiency During Computer-Based
Cooperative Instruction
[] Simon Hooper
M i c h a e l J, H a n n a f i n
Simon Hooper is at the University of Minnesota.
Michael J. Hannafin is at Florida State University.
This study investigated the effects of coopera-
tive group composition, student ability, and
learning accountability on achievement, inter-
action, and instructional efficiency during
computer-based instruction. A total of 125
sixth- and seventh-grade students were ran-
domly assigned to heterogeneous or homoge-
neous dyads. Groups were designated as
having either group or individual account-
ability for mastery of lesson content. Coopera-
tive dyads completed a tutorial on a novel
symbolic mathematics topic, featuring basic
symbol learning and application of the sym-
bols. Indicators of ongoing cooperation were
collected during instruction. Five days later,
students completed a posttest. Low-ability
students interacted more and completed the
instruction more efficiently in heterogeneous
than in homogeneous groups. High-ability
students completed the instruction more
efficiently in homogeneous than in heteroge-
neous groups. Cooperation was significantly
related to achievement for heterogeneous
ability groups, but not for either homoge-
neous high- or low-ability students.
ETR&D,Vol.39,No,3,pp. 27-40ISSN1042-1629
[] One frequently cited benefit of computer-
based instruction (CBI) is the potential to indi-
vidualize by adjusting instruction according
to demands of the learning task, processing
requirements, and ongoing performance of
the learner. However, the costs associated with
providing uniquely adaptive lessons delivered
via individual computers for each student are
often prohibitive. Likewise, the learning envi-
ronment is inherently limited to those strate-
gies, explanations, and resources directly
under computer control; students can neither
receive the varied explanations of their peers
nor gain the cognitive benefits associated with
teaching among peers (Bargh & Schul, 1980).
Students who work individually for extended
periods often become lonely, bored, or frus-
trated, resulting in lower achievement moti-
vation and a learning environment perceived
as sterile and impersonal.
In many cases, individual learning at the
computer may be both unnecessary and
unwise. Group methods that overcome many
of the potential pitfalls of isolation while
improving students' achievement have recently
been validated for CBI (Dalton, Hannafin, &
Hooper, 1989; Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne,
1985, 1986). One method, cooperative learn-
ing, has been researched extensively. Exami-
nation of more than 185 studies comparing
the impact on achievement of cooperative with
competitive learning produced an effect size
27
28
of 0.66 favoring cooperative methods (John-
son & Johnson, 1989). An analysis of more
than 226 studies comparing the achievement
resulting from cooperative versus individual
learning produced an effect size of 0.63 in favor
of cooperative methods.
Cooperative learning also has important
social benefits (Slavin & Oickle, 1981). Accord-
ing to Sharan and associates (Sharan, 1980;
Sharan, KusseU, Sharan, & Bejarano, 1984),
students who work cooperatively improve
both their self-esteem and attitudes toward
peers and school work, are more altruistic
toward group members than to other students
in class, and display improved relations with
group members of diverse races and cultures.
Typically, cooperative learning advocates
recommend that students be grouped heter-
ogeneously, that is, that group composition
be manipulated to include students with
diverse experiences. The rationale for heter-
ogeneous grouping is based on both affective
and cognitive considerations. Students en-
counter wider diversity in heterogeneous than
in homogeneous groups. Thus, heteroge-
neous grouping is more likely to improve inter-
personal attraction among group members.
Heterogeneous grouping can help to disman-
fie social barriers and misconceptions between
majority and minority groups, the handi-
capped and non-handicapped, males and
females, and the socially advantaged and dis-
advantaged (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
Advocates claim that heterogeneous ability
grouping benefits both high- and low-ability
students. Less able, or disadvantaged, stu-
dents receive more instructional support and
regulation from their partners than from the
classroom teacher, are more actively involved,
and may observe their partners' learning strat-
egies (Swing & Peterson, 1982). Concurrently,
more able students may also benefit cogni-
tively from explaining lesson concepts to their
partners and from the opportunity to practice
important skills.
Yet, despite the potential social benefits, the
cognitive effects of heterogeneous ability
grouping have not been established. Some
research indicates that heterogeneous group-
ing of high- and low-ability students supports
the needs of one group at the expense of
~R&D, Vol. 39, No. 3
another. For example, Beane and Lemke (1971)
found that heterogeneous ability grouping
improved the achievement of the most able
group members at the expense of the least
able. However, Webb (1982) reported that het-
erogeneous ability grouping was effective for
both high- and low-ability students. When
grouped homogeneously, high-ability stu-
dents may mistakenly assume that everyone
understands and therefore may interact less
effectively than when grouped heterogene-
ously. Low-ability students may simply be
incapable of supporting each others' learning
needs (Webb, 1988). Another perspective, one
commonly expressed among teachers, sug-
gests that the most able students learn more
slowly, cover less information, and are not
challenged academically when grouped with
less able peers, resulting in reductions in both
efficiency and magnitude of learning.
Recently, the effects of group ability composi-
tion on learning have been further investigated
by Hooper and Hannafin (1988). High- and
low-ability eighth-grade students, grouped
heterogeneously or homogeneously by ability,
completed a mathematics tutorial and an-
swered a series of posttest items. Results indi-
cated that heterogeneous grouping increased
the achievement of low-ability students by
approximately 50% compared to their homo-
geneously grouped peers. In contrast, homo-
geneous grouping increased the achievement
of the high-ability students by approxi-
mately 12% compared to their heterogene-
ously grouped counterparts. The evidence
suggests significant payoffs for low-ability stu-
dents from heterogeneous groupings, but
potential decrements in the performance of
their high-ability cooperative learning partners.
Although the effectiveness of cooperative
learning is often attributed to interaction
among group members (see summary by
Webb, 1989), little is known about the rela-
tionship between intra-group interaction and
achievement. Presumably, achievement dif-
ferences attributable to group composition
correspond to differences in intra-group inter-
action. Indeed, the nature of intra-group coop-
eration is potentially of greater importance
than group composition per se (Webb &
Lewis, 1988). It is important, therefore, to
COOPERAI]VECBI 29

determine how group composition influences instructional efficiency would be greater for
intra-group interaction and to develop meth- high-ability students in homogeneous groups
ods that promote successful interaction. than for those in heterogeneous groups.
Ineffective interaction may also influence
affective responses. Allport (1954) noted that
racial prejudice is reduced not simply by social
M~HOD
contact, but by interaction that promotes
knowledge and acquaintance of group mem-
Subjects
bers. Although Allport specifically addressed
the goal of improved race relations, higher lev-
A sample of 125 sixth-and seventh-grade stu-
els of interaction may improve social relations
dents selected from a rural, predominantly
between group members in general. When
white, middle school participated in the study.
students do not interact, or when the amount
Only students with uniformly high or low per-
of cooperation is low, improved attitudes
formance on both the mathematics subtest of
among partners may be hampered.
a standardized achievement test and a study
One method to promote interaction involves
pretest were included. High-ability students
increasing individual accountability, wherein
scored at or above the 70th percentile for math-
each group member must demonstrate mas-
ematics on the California Achievement Test
tery of content embedded in the instruction.
and above the mean on a pretest specifically
Contrasted with deriving a "team response,"
designed for the study; low-ability students
where less able students might simply defer
scored at or below the 40th percentile and
to those who are more able, or more able stu-
below the mean on the pretest. Special edu-
dents may attempt to dominate, individual
cation students were not included in the
accountability may promote qualitatively and
study. Participation was voluntary and sub-
quantitatively superior interaction. Such tech-
ject to parental consent.
niques may be used both to isolate and reme-
diate potential learning problems within the
group and to provide an additional incentive
Materials
to cooperate (Hooper, Ward, Hannafin, &
Clark, 1989). This technique may reduce the
Pretest
damaging "free rider" and "sucker" effects
(Kerr, 1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1983) by motiva- The pretest comprised 30 items, including
ting more able group members to provide both computation problems requiring appli-
help, and less able members to invest suffi- cation of mathematical order of computational
cient mental effort to master instruction. precedence [e.g., (11 - 7) x 2] and problems
The purposes of this study were to examine: requiring both simple algebraic substitution
(1) the effects of heterogeneous and homoge- and computation precedence [e.g., (3a - c) x b].
neous group ability composition on achieve- Students provided short-answer responses to
ment and interaction; (2) the influence of each pretest item. The pretest essentially par-
group composition on instructional efficiency; alleled the symbolic operations required dur-
and (3) the effects of strategies requiring dif- ing the study. The K-R 20 reliability for the
ferent levels of performance accountability. pretest was. 92.
The achievement, interaction, and learning
efficiency of high- and low-ability students
Cooperation Training
were compared in heterogeneous and homo-
geneous groups featuring either individual Training was designed to facilitate effective
or group performance accountability. It was intra-group interaction and cooperation. Both
predicted that low-ability students would domain-general and domain-specific tech-
demonstrate higher achievement and would niques were employed. Domain-general strat-
interact more in heterogeneous than in homo- egies improve the affective atmosphere within
geneous groups. It was also predicted that each group. These techniques generally im-
30
prove communication among partners and are
believed to transfer across learning domains.
For example, intra-group interdependence is
considered an essential prerequisite to effective
group learning. Domain-specific techniques
are tied closely to the cognitive requirements
of the lesson. Although effective for learning
specific content, they often fail to transfer to
other domains (Salomon & Perkins, 1989). For
example, student-generated analogies may
facilitate text comprehension, but may do lit-
fie to improve understanding of mathematics.
The first of two training sessions empha-
sized peer awareness. Peer awareness was
introduced through the game Broken Circles
(Cohen, 1986). Broken Circles is a puzzle that
cannot be completely solved unless students
sacrifice individual success for the good of
the group. Each group comprised four to six
members, and each member was given an
envelope that contained pieces of a circle.
Although none were given pieces that were
initially adequate to construct a complete cir-
cle, the objective was for every group member
to create a circle. Interaction was limited: Stu-
dents were permitted to offer pieces, but talk-
ing was not allowed and taking game pieces
from other group members was forbidden.
The second training session promoted oral
summarization between group members. Stu-
dents in dyads completed three tasks that
involved identifying and summarizing rules
to a partner. The first task required that stu-
dents work together to learn a large number,
which represented the square of a series of
natural numbers (e.g., 149,162,536 represents
"1," "4," "9," "16, "25," "36"--the squares
of the numbers 1 through 6). The second task
required that students learn a series of logi-
cally incremented novel symbols representing
arithmetic operations. The third task required
that students identify the number of rectan-
gles or squares embedded within a complex
figure. Students were told to identify the rules
that governed each task and to take turns sum-
marizing the rules to each other. When a task
was completed, students were asked to explain
the rules. Between each task, feedback con-
cerning the appropriateness and effectiveness
of student behavior was provided.
ETR&D,Vol.39, No, 3
Observer Training
Five recorders were trained in classroom obser-
vation and data collection processes. Three
training phases were employed: (1) procedures
and cooperation were operationally defined;
(2) observers viewed a videotape vignette of
students demonstrating a variety of coopera-
tive, non-cooperative, and neutral behaviors;
and (3) observers rated the students' behav-
ior and subsequently discussed discrepancies.
Cooperation was defined as an occurrence of
any of the following: explaining, taking turns,
chanting solutions together, summarizing,
asking a question, giving an answer, and so
on. Forms developed to record cooperative
behaviors were used both during initial train-
ing and during the study. Each cooperative
instance was recorded on a form. The total
number of cooperative instances was summed
to provide a cooperation score for each stu-
dent. Upon completion of the training, the
overall ratings were analyzed to determine the
reliability of the raters from one rating to
another (K-R 21 = .99) and the reliability of
each rater compared to a target score (crite-
rion set at > 90%).
CBI Lesson Content
A novel arithmetic symbol system was devel-
oped based upon previous research (see, for
example, Hooper & Hannafin, 1988; Hooper
et al., 1989). This symbol system was devised
to be rule based and easily modified to alter
the difficulty of the content. The symbol sys-
tem reduced the effects of prior knowledge,
since the only essential prior knowledge
involved the ability to perform calculations
with the four basic arithmetic operations.
The lesson comprised three segments: fact
instruction, application instruction, and in-
struction on a special modifier. In each seg-
ment, students received instruction, answered
related practice questions (each question was
followed by immediate feedback), and com-
pleted a paper-and-pencil mastery quiz. Upon
completion of the quiz, answers were dis-
played via the computer for the student to
check. Groups that achieved mastery on the
quiz automatically began the next phase of
COOP~RAT~,,'ECBl
instruction. Alternatively, groups were told to
discuss their errors and to attempt a parallel
version of the quiz when ready. This proce-
dure continued either until mastery was dem-
onstrated or until the mastery quiz had been
repeated twice. After two repetitions, the next
segment was presented.
The fact segment of the lesson emphasized
learning the basic symbol set. Symbols were
presented and students were instructed to
describe to their partners the relationships
among the symbols. Each symbol represented
a constant or an operation. The value of a con-
stant was determined by the number of lines
comprising the symbol. For example, a square
represented the value four. Parabolas repre-
sented operations. For example, the opera-
tions "add" and "subtract" were represented
by parabolas similar to the "greater-than" and
"less-than" symbols. However, students were
not instructed in the rules governing the sym-
bols. Eight multiple-choice practice items were
then provided. Upon completion, a paper-
and-pencil mastery quiz comprising eight
questions was presented. Mastery was set at
100% due to its prerequisite nature for sub-
sequent phases. The symbols employed and
Constants
Represents 0
Represents 1
X Represents2
Represents 3
/ Represents 4
Figure 1 [ ] Symbol Meanings
31
their corresponding values and functions are
contained in Figure 1.
The second segment emphasized methods
for applying the symbols when used in com-
binations. Instruction was provided on how
to evaluate strings of symbols, and students
were given examples illustrating the evalua-
tion process. Practice was then provided in
the form of three 3-symbol strings, three
5-symbot strings, and three 7-symbol strings
(see Figure 2). An embedded mastery quiz
was presented at the end of this section,
which again required 100% accuracy in order
to proceed.
The final segment required that students
learn the role of a special modifier (see Fig-
ure 3). The modifier caused symbols con-
tained within a box to be evaluated before
other symbols and then doubled. A series of
related practice questions was presented, and
mastery of five quiz items was needed for
completion.
Two versions of the CBI lesson were de-
signed to reflect different approaches to
assessing mastery and readiness to continue
the instruction, one emphasizing individual
accountability and the other group account-
Ooerations
"~ RepresentsAdd
Represents Multiply
Represents Subtract
32
Evaluate the string
II X
Answer: 8
Evaluate the string
Answer: 2
Evaluate the string
Answer: 12
Figure 2 [ ] Sample Application Questions
Evaluate the string
x >1 m
Answer: t0
Figure 3 [ ] Sample Application Question with Box Operation
ability for attaining mastery. Students in the
individual accountability group (IR) cooper-
ated during the lesson, but answered the quiz-
zes individually without conferring with their
partner. When both students completed a quiz,
they exchanged and scored each other's quiz
booklets. The lower score obtained by either
group member constituted the group score and
was used to determine group mastery. Stu-
dents in the group accountability group (GR)
cooperated during the lesson and collaborated
to complete and score a single quiz. The score
was used to determine group mastery.
Posttest
The posttest contained 40 questions divided
among fact, application, generalization, and
problem solving. The questions were all
ETR~,Vot,39,NO,3
short-answer items, including 8 fact, 13 appli-
cation, 9 problem-solving, and 10 generaliza-
tion questions. Fact and application questions
reflected the lesson content. Fact questions
measured recall of basic symbol meanings,
and application questions measured the abil-
ity to evaluate strings of symbols. General-
ization questions required students to solve
questions using unseen symbols that were
based upon the same rules as the learned
symbol system. For example, a hexagon rep-
resented the numeral 6. Problem-solving
questions required students to apply the sym-
bols and operation rules to solve unfamiliar
problems. Samples of each question type are
shown in Figure 4.
The questions were presented in a ten-page
booklet. Students were allocated 17 1/2 min-
utes to complete the posttest: 2 minutes to
COOPERATIVECBI
What does the symbol
Answer: Add
Evaluate the string
Answer: 2
Evaluate the string
Answer: 12
Generate 3 symbols that together make the number 8.
Answer: X
Figure 4 [ ] Sample Fact, Application, Generalization, and Problem-Solving PosttestQuestions
complete the answers on each of the first five
pages and 1 1/2 minutes to complete the
answers on each of the remaining pages. To
avoid providing unnecessary cues, students
were not permitted to review previous pages
or advance to subsequent pages until the time
had elapsed. The overall K-R 20 posttest reli-
ability was 0.89.
Dependent Measures
Three classes of dependent measures were
obtained: achievement, rate of cooperative
interaction, and number of embedded quiz-
zes completed. The achievement measures
were obtained through the posttest subscales
and were an indication of lesson-based learn-
ing by individual students. The cooperation
33
mean?
/
score, representing the frequency of each
group member's interaction, was also record-
ed. Thus, two students from the same group
received different cooperation scores if one
student interacted more often than his or her
partner. The cooperation rate for each student--
the cooperation score divided by the number
of observations--was used for the cooperation
analysis. The number of quizzes completed
by each group before demonstrating mastery
was also recorded as an indication of the rel-
ative efficiency of grouping methods.
Design and Data Analysis
The study employed a 2 x 2 x 2 ( x 4) mixed-
effects factorial design. The between-subjects
factors included Ability (high, low); Cooper-
34
ative Group Composition (heterogeneous,
homogeneous); and Accountability (group,
individual). The within-subjects factor, Level
of Questioning, included Fact, Application,
Generalization, and Problem Solving. Achieve-
ment scores were converted to percentages
and analyzed using the complete model, with
the posttest subscale scores treated as a
within-subjects factor. Interaction data were
analyzed through a complete crossing of the
between-subjects factors.
Mastery quizzes were analyzed through a 3 x
2 factorial design. The factors included Instruc-
tional Group (homogeneous low, homogeneous
high, heterogeneous) and Accountability (in-
dividual, group). Follow-up analyses were per-
formed using Neuman-Keuls procedures.
Two analyses were performed on the mas-
tery quizzes data. The first analysis included
data from all three segments; the second was
performed to examine the possible influence
of partial completion of the mastery quizzes.
Due to time constraints, some groups were
forced to terminate the lesson early. Although
all groups completed the instruction, inspec-
tion of the data indicated that the lesson
ended before a few heterogeneous and homo-
geneous low groups mastered the final set of
quizzes. The second analysis included only
the complete set of mastery quiz data obtained
from the first two segments.
Correlation coefficients were also calculated
to determine the relationship between inter-
action during the study and posttest achieve-
ment. This was done in order to obtain
non-causal evidence of the relationship be-
tween cooperation and posttest achievement.
A minimum p of .05 was employed.
Procedures
The pretest was administered to all potential
students in the target school to identify those
with high or low mathematics ability. All iden-
tiffed students then completed the two 45-
minute training sessions during a four-day
period. Students were told they would work
in dyads, that four dyads would win a $10
prize, and that success would be influenced
by the ability to cooperate.
ETR~D, Vol,39, No. 3
Stratified random sampling was used to
establish heterogeneous and homogeneous
ability groups. Heterogeneous ability groups
contained one high-ability student and one
low-ability student. Homogeneous ability
groups contained two high-ability students or
two low-ability students. Each group was
assigned to a computer and completed either
the group or individual accountability version
of the CBI lesson. Students from the individ-
ual accountability dyads were each given quiz
booklets to be completed without help from
their partners; students in the group account-
ability condition were given a single quiz book-
let to complete cooperatively. Students were
allocated 45 minutes to complete the CBI les-
son. All students completed the instruction
and practice segments of the lesson.
To document cooperation within the dyads,
groups were observed by the trained record-
ers during the lesson. Each observation inter-
val lasted 5 minutes. Each unit of cooperation
and related events were recorded on the rat-
ing form. Although raters could identify group
or individual mastery treatments by observa-
tion, they were unaware of the ability com-
position of each group. Furthermore, raters
circulated in the room to ensure that every
dyad was observed for at least 5 minutes dur-
ing each 10-minute period and to reduce
observer bias. Subjects received the written
posttest five days after the initial lesson.
RESULTS
Achievement
Posttest means and standard deviations for
each treatment are contained in Table 1. As
expected, a significant difference was found
for Ability, F(1,117) = 77.64, p < .001. High-
ability students scored higher than low-ability
students on the posttest (means = 81.33%
and 58.81%, respectively; effect size = 1.25
standard deviations). Differences were also
found for Level of Questioning, F(1,117) =
191.91, p < .001, and the interaction between
Level of Questioning and Ability, F(3,351) =
20.38, p < .001. Complex contrasts were sta-
tistically significant between high- and low-
COOPERATIVECBI 35

TABLE1 [ ] Achievement Percentage Means and Standard Deviations by PosttestSubscale

LEVELOF QUESTIONING
GROUP ABILITY Facts Application Generalization ProblemSolving TOTAL
HETEROGENEOUS
High
Indiv. Resp. (IR) M 96.67 82.56 71.33 63.70 78.33
(n = 15) SD 9.99 19.17 26.96 26.05 14.87
Grp. Resp. (GR) M 97.32 91.21 73.57 63.49 81.79
(n = 14) SD 7.24 8.46 23.07 22.41 10.07
Total (n = 29) M 96.98 86.73 72.41 63.60 80.00
SD 8,62 15.37 24.74 23.92 12.68
Low
IR (n = 15) M 95.00 64.10 36.67 27.41 55.17
SD 13.20 25.46 23.50 28.13 18.86
GR (n = 13) M 94.23 79.29 60.77 38.46 68.46
SD 9.70 18.15 23.26 20.60 13.60
Total (n = 28) M 94.64 71.15 47.86 32.54 61.34
SD 11.50 23.28 26.01 25.11 17.67
HOMOGENEOUS
nigh
IR (n = 15) M 100.00 90.77 70.67 62.96 81.33
SD 0.00 12.09 26.04 20.86 9.99
GR (n = 16) M 99.22 87.02 76.25 73.61 83.75
SD 3.13 21.71 23.06 24.30 13.57
Total (n = 31) M 99.60 88.83 73.55 68.46 82.58
SD 2.25 17.52 24.30 22.97 11.84
Low
IR(n = 17) M 97.79 60.63 48.24 24.18 56.77
SD 6.61 15.36 26.04 27.00 11.14
GR (n = 20) M 94.38 68.08 36.50 30.56 57.00
SD 9.49 25.24 24.12 20.03 16.58
Total (n = 37) M 95.95 64.66 41.89 27.63 56.89
SD 8.36 21.33 25.37 23.37 14.15
MAIN EFFECTSSUMMARY
GROUP
Homogeneous
(n = 57) M 95.83 79.08 60.35 48.34 70.83
SD 10.12 21.00 28.03 28.91 17.87
Heterogeneous
(n = 68) M 97.61 75.68 56.32 46.24 68.60
SD 6.57 23.00 29.37 30.41 18.34

ABILITY
High (n = 60) M 98.33 87.21 73.00 66.11 81.33
SD 6.29 16.41 24.31 23.36 12.22
Low (n = 65) M 95.39 67.46 44.46 29.74 58.81
SD 9.78 22.25 25.62 24.07 15.79

ACCOUNTABILITY
IR (n = 62) M 97.38 74.07 56.45 43.91 67.54
SD 8.81 22.12 29.09 31.45 18.26
GR (n = 63) M 96.23 80.34 59.84 50.44 71.67
SD 7.98 21.79 28.48 28.07 17.84
36 ~n~D, VoW.39, No. 3

ability s t u d e n t s for fact vs. application, fact Cooperation

vs. problem solving, fact vs. generalization,
a n d application vs. problem solving questions
(p < .05 in each case), suggesting that differ-
ences in achievement between high- a n d low-
ability students increased as questions became
more complex.
In a d d i t i o n , the effect for accountability
approached significance, F(1,117) = 3.33, p <
.071. Students working in the group account-
ability treatment scored higher on the post-
test than students working in the individual
accountability treatment (means = 71.67%
and 67.54%, respectively; effect size = 0.22
of a standard deviation). N o differences were
found for homogeneous (mean = 70.83%) ver-
sus heterogeneous (mean = 68.60%) d y a d
composition. The p r e d i c t e d interaction be-
tween Ability a n d G r o u p Composition was
not statistically significant, F(1,117) = 2.07,
p = .153. N o o t h e r statistical interactions
were detected.
Means a n d standard deviations for coopera-
tion during the study are contained in Table 2.
A significant difference was found for Account-
ability F(1,117) = 18.29, p < .001, as well as
for Ability, F(1,117) = 10.91, p < .001. Over-
all, s t u d e n t s in the g r o u p accountability
condition (mean = 11.80) cooperated more
frequently than students in the individual
accountability condition (mean = 8.87); high-
ability students (mean = 11.67) cooperated
m o r e f r e q u e n t l y t h a n low-ability s t u d e n t s
(mean = 9.13). However, a significant inter-
action was also found b e t w e e n Ability a n d
Group Composition, F(1,117) = 4.17, p = .043.
Follow-up contrasts indicated that low-ability,
heterogeneously g r o u p e d students (mean =
10.48) cooperated comparably to high-ability
students g r o u p e d homogeneously or hetero-
geneously(means 11.86 vs. 11.46), p > .050. Stu-
dents in all three of these conditions interacted

TABLE2 [] MeansandStandardDeviationsoftheCooperationScores
Group
Ability Accountability HETEROGENEOUS HOMOGENEOUS
HIGH

IR M 9.63 10.93
SD 4.40 3.45
n (15) (15)
GR M 13.42 12.73
SD 4.00 5.27
n (14) (16)
Total M 11.46 11.86
SD 4.57 4.50
n (29) (31)
LOW

IR M 8.76 6.50
SD 3.42 2.09
n (15) (17)
GR M 12.47 9.48
SD 4.17 4.32
n (13) (20)
Total M 10.48 8.11
SD 4.17 3.75
n (28) (37)
Note:Cooperationscores represent the averagenumber of instancesof cooperationper 5-
minute observation.
COOPERATIVECBi
significantly more than low-ability, homoge-
neously grouped students (mean = 8.11), p
< .050. Differences in cooperation rates for low-
ability students in heterogeneous and homo-
geneous groups represent an effect size of 0.58
of a standard deviation.
Mastery Quizzes
Groups completed at least one but no more
than three quizzes after each of three instruc-
tional segments. Thus, each group completed
at least three but no more than nine quizzes.
Mastery quizzes were analyzed twice. First,
the total number of quizzes completed during
the entire lesson was examined. However,
because a few groups failed to complete the
entire lesson, a second analysis was conducted
to examine differences across only the first
two segments, which were completed by
all groups.
In both analyses, a significant effect was
found for Instructional Group: first analysis,
F(2,52) = 4.77, p < .013; second analysis,
F(2,57) = 3.38, p < .041. Follow-up contrasts
for the first analysis indicated that signifi-
cantly more mastery quizzes were attempted
in homogeneous low-ability groups (mean =
5.18) than in the heterogeneous and homo-
geneous high-ability groups (means 4.11 and
4.07 respectively), p < .050. This finding re-
flects the higher probability of failure in the
homogeneous low-ability groups. However,
follow-up contrasts for the second analysis
revealed that, in addition to greater efficiency
in heterogeneous than in homogeneous low-
ability groups (means 2.86 and 3.37, respective-
ly; effect size = 0.43 of a standard deviation),
efficiency was greater in homogeneous high-
ability (mean 2.40) than in heterogeneous
groups (effect size = 0.38 of a standard devi-
ation), p < .050. Apparently, in the first anal-
ysis, this result was absent due to missing
data from the least efficient of the heteroge-
neous groups.
tn the first analysis, the effect for Accountabil-
ity, F(1,52) = 3.40, p < .071, approached sig-
nificance. Overall, individual accountability
groups required more attempts than group
37
accountability groups prior to mastery (4.73
vs. 4.16). In the second analysis, the effect
for Accountability, F(1,57) = 6.54, p < .013,
was significant. Individual accountability
groups required more attempts than group
accountability groups (means 3.32 and 2.50,
respectively; effect size = 0.68 of a standard
deviation).
Correlation Analysis
Overall, a significant correlation was found
between posttest achievement and interaction,
r(125) = .409, p < .001. Correlations between
posttest achievement and interaction were also
examined for high- and low-ability students
in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups.
Significant relationships were found for high-
ability students in heterogeneous groups, r(29)
= .472, p < .010, and for low-ability students
in heterogeneous groups, r(28) = .558, p <
.002. However, correlations were not signifi-
cant in homogeneous groups for either high-
ability, r(31) = .186, p > .010, or low-ability
students, r(37) = -.027, p > .010. In effect,
cooperation frequency was a good predictor of
student achievement only when students were
grouped heterogeneously. Further analyses
focused on testing the differences between
the correlations obtained by high- and low-
ability students in heterogeneous versus
homogeneous groups. Using Fisher-Z trans-
formations, significant differences were found
between low-ability students, Z = 2.28, p <
.030, but not between high-ability students,
Z = 1.18, p > .050, indicating that the corre-
lations between cooperation and achievement
were reliably different only for the low-ability
students.
DISCUSSION
Although little is known about the precise
nature of the relationship between coopera-
tive interaction and learning, most research-
ers suggest that interaction and achievement
are positively related. Results from this study
support this assertion. A significant and pos-
itive overall correlation was found between
38
cooperative interaction and achievement.
However, further analysis indicated that the
relationship is mediated in part by ability
grouping. The correlation was significant for
both high- and low-ability students when
grouped heterogeneously, but not for either
when grouped homogeneously. Correlation
differences were reliable between low-ability
groups, but not between high-ability groups.
These findings partially support Webb's (1988)
contention that the relationship between inter-
action and achievement is strongest in heter-
ogeneous groups. The relationships suggest
that the quality of interaction is mediated by
both ability and group composition.
In addition to the quality of interaction, abil-
ity grouping also appears to affect the quantity
of interaction. A statistical interaction was
found between ability and group composition
for the rate of interaction. Follow-up analyses
indicated that, although high-ability students
interacted at equivalent rates, low-ability stu-
dents interacted more frequently in heteroge-
neous than in homogeneous groups. These
results are not only statistically reliable but
also practically important: Low-ability students
interacted almost 30% more often in hetero-
geneous groups.
Differences in the nature and rate of inter-
action may have important psychological
implications. Webb (1987) suggested that the
effectiveness of cooperative learning may be
tied to the quality and quantity of student
interaction. Those who learn least from coop-
erative learning may be students who coop-
erate ineffectivelyand infrequently and receive
few explanations from partners. Students who
interact constructively may support each oth-
er's learning needs and experience the cog-
nitive benefits of giving help.
Surprisingly, the predicted interaction be-
tween ability and group composition for
posttest achievement was not statistically
significant. Although low-ability students
interacted more in heterogeneous groups than
in homogeneous groups, they did not learn
more. However, further research is required
to validate this finding. In this study, the
experimental treatment was short. The effects
of ability grouping may accumulate when the
experimental treatment is extended.
ETR~D,VoW.39, No. 3
Recently, researchers have directed atten-
tion to promoting intra-group interaction. Two
such methods involve increasing individual
accountability and training students to inter-
act effectively. Accountability increases when
students individually demonstrate mastery of
lesson content. Previous research groups con-
tained four or five subjects. Students who
were held accountable for mastering embed-
ded quizzes performed better on a posttest
than students who collaborated on the quiz-
zes. Apparently, requiring students to dem-
onstrate individual mastery promoted greater
interaction and deeper processing of the les-
son content (Hooper et al., 1989).
In the present study, students who collab-
orated on the quizzes scored higher on the
posttest than those who completed the quiz-
zes individually. This finding suggests that the
"free-rider" effect, which often occurs in
group learning, was absent. Students may
have benefitted from the opportunity for addi-
tional interaction. Not surprisingly, students
who collaborated on quizzes interacted sig-
nificantly more than students who completed
quizzes individually. However, the additional
opportunity to explain lesson concepts and
correct misunderstandings may have facili-
tated deeper processing of lesson content. The
importance of this finding must be treated
with caution, however; the effect size (0.22 of
a standard deviation) may be too small to be
of much practical importance.
The issue of social dilemmas may be more
important in larger groups than in dyads.
Latan~, Williams, and Harkins (1979) found
that the loss of motivation associated with
social loafing increased with group size. Sim-
ilarly, Kerr and Bruun (1983) noted that social
loafing increased with group size, even when
individual accountability was high. In larger
groups, individual members may have little
influence over group behavior, but in dyads
members may form a coalition and individ-
ual effort may be more highly valued.
Recently, researchers have proposed train-
ing to facilitate interaction between students
(Dalton, 1990; King, 1989; Palincsar, Stevens,
& Gavelek, 1990). Interaction training appears
to improve the efficacyof group work (McDon-
ald, Larson, Dansereau, & Spurlin, 1985;
COOPERAT~ CB~
Swing & Peterson, 1982). Without training,
interaction is often ineffective: Students imi-
tate behavior that is familiar but unrelated to
group success (McKellar, 1986). However, con-
siderable research is needed to identify inter-
action variables that mediate learning and
techniques that induce students to interact
appropriately.
Ability grouping appears to influence in-
structional efficiency. Low-ability homoge-
neous groups attempted significantly more
quizzes than other groups. Furthermore, the
second analysis indicated that heterogeneous
groups attempted more quizzes than high-
ability homogeneous groups. These results
suggest that learning was most efficient for
homogeneously grouped, high-ability stu-
dents and least efficient for homogeneously
grouped, low-ability students; apparently the
low-ability students benefitted from, but
slowed the progress of, the high-ability stu-
dents. Again, however, the effect sizes for both
findings were relatively small (less than 0.50
of a standard deviation) and therefore may be
of little practical importance.
Three recommendations for future research
should be noted. First, group learning was not
compared to individualized instruction in this
study. Although some evidence supports the
efficacy of cooperative learning for students
of all abilities, direct comparison of individu-
alized and cooperative CBI was not possible
from the present data. Future research should
include control groups to compare the effects
of ability grouping across group and individ-
ual treatments. Second, findings from this
study may not generalize to larger groups. Stu-
dent motivation may be mediated by group
size. Free riding is more apt to occur when
groups include more than two persons; thus,
the issue of social dilemmas may be more
important in larger groups. Researchers should
also examine whether free riding is more prev-
alent during longer treatments. Free-rider
effects may be less prevalent during a short
experiment, in which novelty effects are more
likely to occur, than during a longitudinal
study. Finally, in this study heterogeneous
groups comprised only high- and low-ability
students. Generally, controversy and argu-
mentation increase as intra-group heteroge-
39
neity increases (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
Consequently, the results may not generalize
to other kinds of heterogeneous groups, i.e.,
groups containing students of high and aver-
age ability, average and low ability, or high,
average, and low ability. Research is needed
to examine the effects of these other group
compositions.
Future research should also analyze the
nature of cooperative interaction. In this study,
only an aggregate measure of interaction was
recorded. Although a stronger relationship
between interaction and achievement was
inferred for heterogeneously than for homo-
geneously grouped students, the quality of
interaction was not measured.
Small-group models offer considerable po-
tential for cognitive, affective, and fiscal
benefits for CBI. However, group composition
has important implications, especially when
learning gains for one group are achieved at
the expense of even small achievement losses
for another group. Equity concerns will con-
tinue until a model is shown to maximize
achievement for students of all abilities. The
results suggest that heterogeneous grouping
provides a supportive learning environment
for low-ability students, but that the benefit
is partially offset by reduced efficiency for the
most able students. []
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1954). Nature of prejudice. Cambridge,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive
benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 72, 593-604.
Beane, W. E., & Lemke, E. A. (1971). Group vari-
ables influencing the transfer of conceptual behav-
ior. Journa! of Educational Psychology, 62, 215-218.
Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies
for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Dalton, D. W. (1990). The effects of cooperative
learning strategies on achievement and attitudes
during interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 17, 8-16.
Dalton, D. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989).
The effects of individual versus cooperative
computer-assisted instruction on student perfor-
mance and attitudes. Educational Technology Re-
search and Development, 37(2), 15-24.
40
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative
CBh The effects of heterogeneous versus homo-
geneous grouping on the learning of progres-
sively complex concepts. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 4, 413-424.
Hooper, S., Ward, T. J., Hannafin, M. J., & Clark,
H. T. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition
on achievement during small group learning. Jour-
nal of Computer-BasedInstruction, 16, 102-109.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Coopera-
tion and competition: Theory and research. Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B.
(1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures on computer-
assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 77, 668-677.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B.
(1986). Comparison of computer-assisted coop-
erative, competitive, and individualisticlearning.
American Educational ResearchJournal, 23, 382-392.
Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups:
A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 819-828.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). The dispensabil-
ity of member effort and group motivation losses:
Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44, 78-94.
King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem-
solving within computer-assisted cooperative
learning groups. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 5, 1-15.
LatanG B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many
hands make light work: The causes and conse-
quences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
McDonald, B. A., Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. E,
& Spurlin, J. E. (1985). Cooperative dyads: Impact
on text learning and transfer. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 10, 369-377.
McKellar, N. A. (1986). Behaviors used in peer tutor-
ing. Journal of Experimental Education, 54,163-168.
Palincsar, A. S., Stevens, D. D., & Gavelek, J. R.
~D, Vol. 39, No. 3
(1990). Collaborating with teachers in the inter-
est of student collaboration. International Journal
of Educational Research, I3(1), 41-53.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads
to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected
phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2),
113-142.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small
groups: Recent methods and effects on achieve-
ment, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of
Educational Research, 50, 241-271.
Sharan, S., Kussell, P., Sharan, Y., & Bejarano, Y.
(1984). Cooperative learning: Background and
implementation of this study. In S. Sharan, P.
Kussell, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, Y. Berano, S. Raviv,
& Y. Sharan (Eds.), Cooperativelearning in the class-
room: Research in desegregated schools (pp. 1-45).
HiUsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. E., & Oickle, E. (1981). Effects of cooper-
ative learning teams on student achievement and
race relations: Treatment by race interactions. Soci-
ology of Education, 54, 174-180.
Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relation-
ship of student ability and small-group interac-
tion to student achievement. American Educational
ResearchJournal, 19, 259-274.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning
in small cooperative groups. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 642-655.
Webb, N. M. (1987). Peer interaction and learning
with computers in small groups. Computers in
Human Behavior, 3, 193-209.
Webb, N. M. (1988, April). Peer interaction and learn-
ing in small groups. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning
in small groups. International Journal of Educational
Research, 13(1), 21-39.
Webb, N. M., & Lewis, S. (1988). The social con-
text of learning computer programming. In R. E.
Mayer (Ed.), Teaching and learning computer pro-
gramming. Hitlsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.