Groupwork with Computers: an overview of findings
Abstract
Abstract The paper presents the main findings of the London‐based study, carried out as part of the ESRC project Groupwork with Computers. During this study, we attempted to identify the background and process factors which influence the success of groupwork with computers. The research used a multi‐site case study design in six schools and involved eight groups of six mixed‐sex, mixed‐ability pupils (aged 9–12) undertaking three mathematics tasks, two using LOGO and one a database. Our main findings suggest that group settings are only successful in terms of both group outcome and learning, if the group structures their activity in particular and identifiable ways. These organisational styles and patterns of interaction themselves are conditional on interpersonal and social characteristics of the group and class.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Groups are likely to achieve a good group product if they develop structured interdependence with individual autonomy, facilitated by task design but relying on a high-status pupil-coordinator.
“. . .groups were likely to achieve a good group product if they proved able to develop a framework of structured interdependence together with individual autonomy.This we argue is facilitated by the task design, but relies upon the emergence of a high-status pupil-coordinator . ..”
From An Activity Theory framework to explore distributed communities (1997) · cites this paper as Hoyles et al., 1994
Cites
Peer interaction and learning in small groups
Webb, N. M. (1989) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1 · Cited by 1,050 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Activity Theory framework to explore distributed communities
Lewis, R. (1997) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.1997.00023.x · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hoyles, C., Healy, L., & Pozzi, S.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hoyles, C.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-12
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 202-215
- ISSN
- 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2729
- OpenAlex
- W2019035437
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 6.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Keywords
- cooperative learning, group structure, group interaction patterns, interpersonal factors, logos, databases, mathematics learning, elementary school students, heterogeneous grouping, group outcomes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
