Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 443–458 | Cite as

Individual and group performance of computerized educational tasks

  • Joseph Klein


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.


Computerized learning Interactive simulations Individual learning Cooperative learning 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, J. C., & Hayne, S. C. (1998). Group versus individual decision making in strategic market games. Mimeo: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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).Google Scholar
  11. Elidan, G., & Friedman, N. (2006). Learning hidden variable networks: The information bottleneck approach. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6, 81–127.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Endsley, M. R., & Smith, R. P. (1996). Attention distribution and decision making in tactical air combat. Human Factors, 38(2), 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eugene, S. S. (2004). Cognitive style and the management of small and medium-sized enterprises. Organization Studies, 25(2), 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1989). An approach to training based upon principal task decomposition. Acta Psychologica, 71(1–3), 14–89.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Girard, N. (2007). Multitasking: How much is too much? AORN, 85(3), 505–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gopher, D. (1993). The skill of attention control. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance, XVI (pp. 299–322). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Gopher, D., Amony, L., & Greenshpan, Y. (2000). Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 129, 308–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamalainen, R. (2008). Designing and evaluating collaboration in a virtual game environment for vocational learning. Computers in Education, 50(1), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartman, S. J., Lundberg, O., & White, M. (1990). Effect of background and organizational position on executive planning. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 801–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Biases in judgment comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kogut, B., & Zadner, U. (1996). What firms do? coordination, identity and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Komiya, A., Kusumi, T., & Watabe, M. (2007). Regret in individual and group decision making. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 78(2), 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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 [].
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Littleton, K., & Light, P. (1999). Learning with computers, analysing productive interaction. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Lombardozzi, C. (2001). Learning journal: Thoughts on learning in organizations
  41. Malone, T. W., & Kevin, C. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. (1998). Attentional limitation in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  48. Passig, D. (2007) Melioration as a higher thinking skill to enhance intelligence. Teachers college record. Columbia University. 109(1), 24–50.Google Scholar
  49. Pinto, M., Pinto, J., & Prescott, J. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project team cross functional cooperation. Management Science, 39, 1281–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Polk, T. A., & Seifert, C. M. (Eds.). (2002). Cognitive modeling. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  52. Porush, J. (1984). On consultants’ negligence or: The best of doctors should go to hell. Israel Law, 12, 119–124.Google Scholar
  53. Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, 20, 105–110.Google Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Sharan, S. (2002). Differentiating method of cooperative learning in research and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sharon, M. (1997). Divided attention: A study on high organizing abilities. Tel-Aviv: Gomeh Scientific Publications, Tcherikover Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Shaw, M. (1976). Group decision dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.Google Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tetlock, P. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? how can we know?. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(2), 254–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bar-Ilan University, School of EducationRamat-GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations