Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of implementing individual and small group learning structures with a computer simulation in accounting. College students used one of three learning structures with the simulation: (a) an individual structure, (b) a small group structure with extensive interaction, or (c) a small group structure with occasional interaction. Results indicated that performance scores were high regardless of learning structure. However, students who worked alone expressed significantly more continuing motivation for their learning structure than students who worked with a partner. Responses to student interviews revealed somewhat mixed feelings for the small group structures. Observation data indicated that students who used the extensive small group structure exhibited significantly more discussion and provided more answers to their partners' questions than students who used the occasional group structure. Implications for implementing small group structures with computer-based instruction are provided.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Accounting Education Change Commission (1990).Objectives of education for accountants: Position statement one. Bainbridge, WA: Author.
Becker, H.J. (1991). How computers are used in schools.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(4), 385–406.
Birney, R., & Smith, R.E. (1994).An introduction to accounting: A business simulation. [Computer program]. New York: McGraw Hill College Division.
Bossert, S.T. (1988–89). Cooperative activities in the classroom. In E.Z. Rothkopf (Ed.),Review of Research in Education (pp. 225–250). Washington, DC, American Educational Research association.
Carrier, C.A., & Sales, G.C. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a computer-based instructional lesson.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 11–17.
Cavalier, J.C. (1996).Effects of learning strategy and orienting activity during computer-based learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Cavalier, J.C., & Klein, J.D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orienting activities during computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 5–17.
Cosden, M.A. (1989). Cooperative groups and microcomputer technology.The Pointer, 33(2), 21–26.
Crooks, S.M., Klein, J.D., Jones, E.E.K., & Dwyer, H. (1996). Effects of cooperative learning and learner control modes in computer-based instruction.Journal of Research on Computing in Education.
Dalton, D.W., Hannafin, M.J., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitude.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 15–24.
Doran, M.S. (1994).The effects of individual, cooperative, and collaborative learning structures using a computer simulation in accounting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Doran, M.S., Sullivan, H.J., & Klein, J.D. (1993). Student performance and attitude using peer collaboration in accounting.The 15th Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Paper Presentations, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, (pp. 335–350).
Druckman, D., & Bjork, R.A. (1994).Learning, remembering, & believing: Enhancing team and individual performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M.D. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(4), 5–18.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1988).Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989).Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., & Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668–677.
Kagan, S. (1989).Cooperative learning resources for teachers. Laguna Niguel, CA: Resources for Teachers.
King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem solving within computer-assisted cooperative learning groups.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 1–15.
Klein, J.D., & Pridemore, D.R. (1994). Effects of orienting activities and practice on achievement, continuing motivation, and student behaviors in a cooperative learning environment.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(4), 41–54.
McKinzie, P. (1996)Curriculum development project report. Arizona State University, School of Accountancy.
Oglesbee, T.W., Bitner, L.N., & Wright, G.B. (1988). Measurement of incremental benefits in computer enhanced instruction.Issues in Accounting Education, 3, 365–377.
Orr, K.L., & Davidson, G.V. (1993, January).The effects of computer-based instruction and learning style on achievement and attitude. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LA.
Palinscar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1989). Classroom dialogues and promoting self-regulated comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.),Advances in research on teaching (pp. 35–71). New York: JAI.
Ravenscroft, S.P., Buckless, F.A., McCombs, G.B., & Zuckerman, G.J. (1993, August).Incentives in student team learning: An experiment in cooperative group learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Accounting Association, San Francisco, CA.
Schlecter, T.M. (1990). The relative instructional efficiency of small group computer-based training.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 329–341.
Sherman, G.P., & Klein, J.D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 43(4), 5–24.
Slavin, R.E. (1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R.E. (1991). Group rewards make groupwork work.Educational Leadership, 48(5), 89–91.
Smith, B.L., & MacGregor, J.T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, & V. Tinto, (Eds.),Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 9–22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Smith, K.A. (1989). The craft of teaching cooperative learning: An active learning strategy.Proceedings of the 1989 Annual Convention of the American Society for Engineering Education (pp. 188–192).
Snyder, T.E. (1993).Effects of cooperative and individual learning on student misconceptions in science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
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. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups.International Journal of Educational research, 13(1), 21–39.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The simulation described in the manuscript was developed as part of an Accounting Education Change Commission grant awarded to the School of Accountancy at Arizona State University. The authors wish to thank Pat McKinzie and Rick Birney for their support of this research study. This manuscript was reviewed by Steve Ross before publication in ETR&D. It was previously accepted for publication in the refereed research section ofEducational Technology Magazine.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klein, J.D., Doran, M.S. Implementing individual and small group learning structures with a computer simulation. ETR&D 47, 97–109 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299479
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299479