, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 33–39 | Cite as

Two decades of use in K-12 education

  • Michael Mazyck
Contents Integrated Learning Systems and Students of Color:


ILSs are here to stay. School boards, administrators and other decision makers interested in what they perceive as a way of preparing their students to do well on standardized tests will continue to drive the purchases of ILSs upward each year. If ILSs are to become more effective for the rapidly growing number of students from diverse backgrounds (including many students of color) who will spend months and years using them perhaps it is time for ILS companies to consider changes in their approach to design as opposed to “just tweaking” the current design. A good starting point for changes in the approach to the design of ILSs would be to consider the importance of the awareness of cultural diversity in the design and to attempt to integrate cooperative learning into the design as well. If ILS companies seriously consider these suggestions they can create a system for the next two decades that has the potential to be more effective for the large numbers of students from diverse backgrounds who are the main users of these systems.


Educational Technology Student Achievement Cooperative Learning Instructional Technology Educational Software 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alifrangis, C. (1989).A critical analysis of the components of an integrated learning system and a measure of the system’s effect on mathematics and reading achievement of fourth through sixth grade students. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, G. (1993).Wanted: a road map for understanding integrated learning systems. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. Barrett, D. (1996). Analysis of the instructional design variables within selected integrated learning systems (ILS): Implications for design changes to enhance cultural diversity. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, H. (1992a). A model for improving the performance of ILSs: Mixed individualized/group/whole class lessons, cooperative learning and organizing time for teacher led remediation of small groups.Educational echnology, 32(9), 6–15.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, H. (1992b). Computer-based integrated learning systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, H. (1994). Mindless or mindful use of integrated learning systems.International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, H. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information technologies.Theory Into Practice, 37(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, H., & Hativa, N. (1994). History, Theory, and research concerning integrated learning systems.International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bender, P. (1991). The effectiveness of integrated computer learning systems in the elementary school.Contemporary Education, 63(1), 19–23.Google Scholar
  9. Bracey, G. W. (1990). Results of cognition research could help improve educational software.Electronic Learning, 9(4), 18–20.Google Scholar
  10. Branch, R., Brigham, D., Chang, E., & Stout, R., (1991).Successful strategies for incorporating cultural diversity into instruction. Orlando: Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Brush, T. (1997a). The effects of group composition on achievement and time on task for students completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brush, T. (1997b). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brush, T. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: Rationale and guidelines.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bunderson, C. V., & Faust, G. W. (Eds.). (1976).Programmed and com- puter-assisted instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clariana, R. (1996). Differential achievement gains for mathematics computation, concepts, and applica- tions with an integrated learning sys- tem.Journal of Computers in Mathematics Teaching, 15(3), 202–215.Google Scholar
  16. Cox, D., & Berger, C. (1985). The importance of group size in the use of problem-solving skills on a microcomputer.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(4), 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dahn, V. (1992).The effect of integrated learning systems on mathematics and reading achievement and student attitudes in selected Salt Lake City, Utah elementary schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  18. Dalaker, J., & Proctor, B. D. (2000).Poverty in the United States: 1999 (US Census Bureau, Current Population Report Series P60-210). Washington: United States Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  19. Dalton, D. (1990). The effects of co- operative learning strategies on achievement and attitudes during in- teractive video.Journal of Computer- Based Instruction, 17(1), 8–16.Google Scholar
  20. Dalton, D., Hannafin, M., & Hooper, S. (1989). The effects of individual versus cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Education Turnkey Systems. (1989).Study of integrated learning systems/instructional networks conducted for the education committee of the Software Publishers Association. Falls Church: Education Turnkey Systems.Google Scholar
  22. Garibaldi, A. M. (1979). Affective contributions of cooperative and group goal structures.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6), 788–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hale, J. E. (1991). The transmission of cultural values to young African American children.Young Children, 3(3), 8.Google Scholar
  24. Hativa, N. (1994). What you design is not what you get: WYDINWYG: Cognitive, affective, and social impacts of learning with ILS- An integration of findings from six years of qualitative and quantitative studies.International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 81–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hodgkinson, H. (1987). Today’s curriculum -how appropriate will it be in year 2000?NASSP Bulletin, 71(498), 2–4, 6–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgkinson, H. (1988). The right schools for the right kids.Educational Leadership, 45(5), 10–14.Google Scholar
  27. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hooper, S., Simon, T., & Hannafin, M. (1991). Psychological perspectives on emerging instructional technologies: A critical analysis.Educational Psychologist, 26(1), 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ba]Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high and average-ability students.Educational Technology Re- search and Development, 41(2).Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (Eds.). (1996).Cooperation and the use of technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillian.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989).Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  32. Lange, P. C. (Ed.). (1967).National society for the study of education yearbook, 66 (Part II). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mecklenburger, J. (Ed.). (1990).For- ward to the integrated instructional systems report. Water Mill: EPIE Institute.Google Scholar
  34. Mevarech, Z. (1993). Who benefits from cooperative CAI?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4), 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mevarech, Z. (1994). The effectiveness of individualized versus cooperative computer-based integrated learning systems.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mevarech, Z., Silber, O., & Fine, D. (1991). Learning with computers in small groups: Cognitive and affective outcomes.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mevarech, Z., Stern, D., & Levita, I. (1987). To cooperate or not to cooperate in CAI: that is the question.Journal of Educational Research, 80, 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mills, S. (1997).Implementing integrated learning systems in elementary classrooms. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.Google Scholar
  39. Nastasi, B., & Clements, D. (1991). Research on cooperative learning: Implications for practice.School Psychology Review, 20(1), 110–131.Google Scholar
  40. Ogbu, J. H. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning.Educational Researcher, 21(8), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ogbu, J. U., & Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986).Understanding sociocultural factors in education: Knowledge, identity, and adjustment in schooling. Sacramento: California State University-Los Ange- les Evaluation, Dissemination and As- sessment Center.Google Scholar
  42. Rocklin, T., O’Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Hythecker, V., & Larson, C. (1985). Training learning strategies with computer-aided cooperative learning.Computers in Education, 9(1), 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saettler, P. (1990).The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Sherry, M., & Komoski, K. (Eds.). (1990).The integrated instructional systems (IIS) report. Water Mill: EPIE Institute.Google Scholar
  45. Simpson, J. (1986). Computers and collaborative work among students.Educational Technology, 26(10), 37–43.Google Scholar
  46. Slavin, R. E. (1995).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  47. Suppes, P., & Macken, E. (1978). The historical path from research and development to operational use of CAI.Educational Technology, 18(4), 9–12.Google Scholar
  48. Suppes, P., & Morningstar, M. (1972).Computer-assisted instruction at Stanford, 1966–68, Models and evaluations of the arithmetic program. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  49. Trotter, A. (1990). Computer learning.American School Board Journal, 177(7), 12–18.Google Scholar
  50. Van Dusen, L., & Worthen, B. (1994). The impact of integrated learning system implementation on student outcomes: implications for research and evaluation.International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Horn, R. (1991). Educational power tools: New instructional delivery systems.Phi Delta Kappan, 72(1), 527–533.Google Scholar
  52. Wenglinsky, H. (1998).Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics (Policy Information Re- port 33321222). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  53. White, M. A. (1992). Are ILSs good for education?Educational Technology, 32(9), 49–50.Google Scholar
  54. Worthen, B., Van Dusen, L., & Sailor, P. (1994). A comparative study of the impact of integrated learning systems on student’s time on task.International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Mazyck

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations