1991
DOI: 10.1177/016264349101100104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goals on Student Achievement Using Computer-Based Drill-and-Practice

Abstract: This study investigated the effects of four different goal structures on mathematics achievement among students assigned to work with partners on a computer-assisted instruction (CAI) arithmetic task. Forty-six mildly handicapped junior high school students were paired and assigned to cooperative, competitive, individualistic, and no goal control conditions. Dyads worked ten minutes per day, three days per week, over a four-week period on a mathematics game designed to increase single-digit computation fluenc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to these, students participating in groups using digital educational math games benefited more than the team that did not play a digital game. Similar are the findings of the few relevant intervention programs for students with intellectual disabilities incorporating digital games addressing various fields of mathematics (Bahr & Rieth, 1991;Friedman & Hofmeister, 1984;Singh & Agarwal, 2013). But the effectiveness of a teaching intervention is judged by whether the improved performance was maintained.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to these, students participating in groups using digital educational math games benefited more than the team that did not play a digital game. Similar are the findings of the few relevant intervention programs for students with intellectual disabilities incorporating digital games addressing various fields of mathematics (Bahr & Rieth, 1991;Friedman & Hofmeister, 1984;Singh & Agarwal, 2013). But the effectiveness of a teaching intervention is judged by whether the improved performance was maintained.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…However, while in the international literature there is sufficient evidence for the usefulness of incorporation of digital games in the teaching of mathematics, there is a lack of sufficient information and knowledge regarding their use in education for children with intellectual disabilities. The few studies related to this field have weaknesses (Bahr & Rieth, 1991;Podell, Tournaki-Rein & Lin, 1992). These weaknesses are usually related to the methodological design (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The students could have received (a) just feedback on performance or effort or (b) feedback on performance or effort that was tied to a specific performance goal. The feedback could also be from a variety of sources, including teachers (e.g., Schunk & Cox, 1986), other peers (e.g., Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, 1984a), and computer software programs (e.g., Bahr & Rieth, 1991).…”
Section: Phase 2 Coding: Describing the Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Providing feedback to students with goals. In three studies (Bahr & Rieth, 1991;L. S. Fuchs et al, 1997;L.…”
Section: Providing Formative Assessment Data and Feedback To Studentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Single-case research design (SCRD) studies were excluded, as well as any studies that lacked sufficient quantitative data to calculate effect sizes. Within the corpus, only three studies were conducted with students in Grades 6–12 (Bahr & Rieth, 1991; Calhoon & Fuchs, 2003; Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb, Meyers, & Duncan, 1983). The seven effect sizes from these studies ranged from d = −0.31to 0.53, and findings were most favorable for students at risk for mathematics disabilities and interventions that targeted math computations.…”
Section: Effective Instructional Delivery Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%