I__. - International Military Testing Association

I'd like to start with an brief overview of basic research on
CL and then review efforts by the Army to test the methodology in
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) schools.
McNeese (1989) provides a useful tabulation of CL research.
He cites Slavin's 1983 review showing that in 46 studies 29 had
shown favorable effects, 15 no differences, and 2 showed advantages
for fftraditionallf education. Johnson & Johnson (1985) reported that
out of 26 studies 21 were favorable, two showed mixed results, and
3 no differences: on balance, strong support for the value of CL.
However, the reviews suggest that merely grouping students is not
enough. Students do have to cooperate. Slavin goes further and says
that group incentives, coupled with individual responsibility,'are -.
essential.
Otherwise, CL works,in many different circumstances. Johnson,
Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon (1981), in a review of 122
studies extending from 1924 to 1981, found that CL was effective
across a range of ages, subjects, and tasks. What emerges, from
these reviews, is a type of conclusion often found for new
performance technology. Cooperative Learning can be effective if
properly designed. This conclusion applied to academic settings.
Would it also apply to Army Schools?
Research to answer this question was done at Fts. Lee and Knox
and implemented at Ft. Lee under TRADOC-AR1 partnerships called
Training Technology Field Activities (TTFAs). I first want to say
a word about these, to provide a perspective on why this research
was undertaken. In 1983 the TRADOC Commanding General concluded
that his schools were not capitalizing on a steady stream of new
ideas and technology emerging from the training R & D community.
He wanted to establish a formal link from basic research to the
Army's training community. Accordingly he invited AR1 to join with
selected schools in TTFAs. Their purpose was to test new training
technology, on significant Army problems, using TRADOC testbeds.
The schools and TRADOC HQ were to lead in identifying test bed
problems, while AR1 was to lead in identifying a prototype
research-based solution. The partners were then to join forces in
testing the solution.
Activities were established at several schools including
Quartermaster at Ft. Lee, Virginia and Armor at Ft. Knox, Kentucky.
Cooperative learning projects were undertaken at these schools
because basic research had shown that CL can be very efficient. But
it had to be proven and implemented in Army settings. I'll mention
the Knox work briefly and then focus on the work at Lee, since this
was implemented and is still being used.
Shlechter (1987) at Ft. Knox compared training effectiveness
for cooperative groups of 2 or 4 students, and for individuals in
the 19K MOS (Tank Commanders). From computer-based instruction (on
MICROTICCIT) each student had to learn to interpret radio call
signs and communicate in coded messages, tasks for which
performance deficiencies had been documented.
163